EXHIBIT

1~117

•••a n I a U il II i.,;1

March '12 7008

Mr D Kirk Shatter

Associate Adn'lrl'st"a:or fa' A"'poris

Feceral Av'at·c'l4.dr'1"1!stralron

,<)00lndepende nce Ave nue N v.

Vvasbinqton. DC 20591

Re Santa Monica MunicloalAirport - Runway Safety Areas

Than", yOJ for outilri'lg the Federal Aviato» Administration's (FpAl position regardlnq

runway safety areas fa' the Santa Monica Municipal Airport (Airport) It rerna-ns tile City's

oosmon that rnaxn-uzrnq the safety for operators Of aircraft passengers anc for residents

;'vln9 adjacent to tne Airport by applying r AA standards for runway safety areas IS vital to

he long term interests of lne Airport. The Cty Council h<Js indicated its mteres: "1 hearing

!'le FAAs explanation Of its position regarding Runway Safety Areas and accepts 'yOW offer

to appear at t-ie City Council meeting of March 25 2008 to provide that explanation

1'1 rev;ewing your letter of March 7 2008 tne City has concerns 'egarcfng :he nonstandard

safety opt.ons proposed for the west end of the runway ar o the complete absence o' any

safety options proposed for the east end of the runway

Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) - The Cays pleased that

tne rAA has agreed With the City's position that a 1,OOO-ft.Runway Safety Area (or lO-kllot

:::\.1AS equivalent) is needed Or] tne west end of the runway However. thc Efvl;\S graphic

forwardeo to the City on March 6. 2008. and referred to In yow March 71cttcr Indicated an

C AA recommendation for a 250 foot EMAS bed With a 25 foot lead-In to the EM,';S bed

The analysis (attachment A) requested by FA? and oertormeo by Engineered i\rresllr'Y

Systems Corporation (ESeQ) the manufacturer of EMAS, shows that a 250 ft Ff.•1A.Sbed

at SMO 'would orov.ce IO-knot stopping capability for only 2.of tile 7 aircraft selected tor

analysis by ESCO In other words the 250-ft EMAS bed would not provide 70 knot

stopping capability for 5 of the 7 aircraft selected for analysis Perhaps the wronq graphl:

was inadvc'1crtly sent to tbe City 0'1 ~.~arch 6 If so. please provide the actual dimensions

of the 70 knot EMI\S ir stallation referred to In your March 7 letter
o Kirk Shaffer, Associate Administrator

March 12, 2008

Page 2 of 3

To provide some frame of reference, both the attached January 18 2006 ESCO data, which

was attached to the January 20 2006 (attachment B) letter sent by Davrd Bennett of the

FAA, and the subsequent attached May 30,2006 (attachment C) ESCO data which

expanded the number of options modeled demonstrate that a 70 knot standard could be

met witt' either a 250 foot E].•.1.c..Sbed with a 350 foot lead if' or a 40C foot FM .•\S bed with a

.:5 'oct lcad-ir:

", idditlO'1 to 'reeting the 70 knot stanoard on t-ie west sice of t"'!:" rlw\,'JaY the Crtv IS also

conccrncc acc.i: orcvonq adequate safety protect.on fcr the east side of 1'1(;rYH,'<:1'';A.s

~'-e orevious F,::"A,A,elf'l'liS:fater r/drion C Blakey statec II" ne J~jne 12 2C06 letter to

Ccnqressmar Her rvvvaxrnan concerr-mq ;~S,A,$a: SMO '~!tc !!ave ;' r)U'O tr,«. ccn~:e'ns of

Your letter mcicatcs tria: 97'/ o· aircraft ooeratons are to Ih~ vvESt ] tH' c: tv S Ci8t3

.ncicates that tre aC-lai -Clure is somewhere between 94°/. and 9,/'.< ieavlr93-6 ot

operatiors I:,) the CdS! ;::!\;\ s position IS appar ently that tI'IS is a suffrcie-vlv low r c-nocr as

'0 not WWfWl: any safe!', protectior f so, the City does r ot ll'l{jer~ta'ld IlCYN an impact on a

"action of tr cse ooera: CIS due ro Implel1ertatcn of se-ne R~~;A, ilN'Ietner :hr::llJgr tt e .ise

0' declarec distances or other means! ;J1i tt e eas: Side would ur.oose an Impact on

oueratiors ttat is unacceptable to the F.AA Tlus is partict.lar y hIS since FAF:S statutory

mandate IS tt-at the safe cceratron of the r-at.o-ial arroort and arrwav system IS ItS higrest

pnorrtv Coiseuue-r.iv an rAA P()5IltJf1 hal tnere shoi.lo De '10 fYC" ••'SCfl c:f sCifet'! marquis

"or the .3-6" of tile: operations that (He easl()C,md (apparertly o ue :0 concerrs (WW

irnpie"',entatlor of sa-ety rna-qir s that would affect a 'T1Ucr 'C'/J:3r evel C:/ ope-ations: would

appear teo tx' contra v to the agency's statutory rnanda:e 10 prorrote safety' Perhaps the

City has rrust.r destocd '-,A/:"5 positron. and .ne aqercy wcu d s.ippor: saie.y enharcerne-u

'ry the east Sloe 0- the runway '/',;e V.'O,I d appreciate FA,b, ctantication c' r s POSition In tns

'eqarc

Hold Line - ,6,ltroJgh 1'],s pronosal IS not 'elate:j to t'le runway sai<,ty

discussions 80C"iC .no Citv apprcc.atcs the F,tv\s conside-ation ot cnanqe s :o the

procedures fo, aircrar; rr over ter t or tr c t.e.d In orcer to !l11r1TZe ~'le trrr e arrcr att spend

IJr" the taxiways and a: :"8 departure end of tile runway. the City has -ist U:C:8 two ocl.c.cs

In cooperation with t-ic ;-AU., The !:::R Engine Star: :'Jroccc:ures fTlnlTIZC .ncdcluv between

encrr.e start and depa":.He Cv ravir'q fixed-wing t.irbine aircraft obtain a departi.re release

::no 'ren ,Air Traffic Centro ouor to Stdrti'lg Its engines 0' :axi:ny tc :'le ;::R f-old f\/eas on

~'lC taxiwavs The IFR He,d ,s,rea I')r(]cedure~ WO''''i:1efor an ,lfP;l on Ihe laxll/Jay 2:-)C) feet

:'om the er-d of the .urwav [o: aircra't to hold while vv3itin'J for cfenal1u-e clearance trom .AIr

-':Jffc Conu ot. ,A,lth:JuQ'l the City rarely receives cornctamts re<;lar,j '19 :he hotcrr-q tunes for

'/I='~ traffic the CI!\l \,';ioJld be glad to discuss 'he in:::IUSI0f1of 'IFF: traffe '1 the current

:::ngine Start and Iioid Area Prcceci, res, includinq the impacts on Sideline noise Of'

re srcentrat areas to the north anc impact of the wesler!v winds C'1 anv a.rcraft noise or

engwe orrussrons w-ren noldmq on the tdXW<J,/S,
D Kirk Shaffer. Asscc.ate Adrrunistrator

March' 2 2008

Page 3 of 3

3 PEEER RNAV Departure - The City remains very interested in this new

nrccedure Cowing the ne: .••eloornent of this procedure and during Its prio- U'lsuccessful test

oer od. tr e CIt.y'S staff at the Airport was not. consulted about mplernentatron of thrs

orccedure. Its our uncerstand.nq that on.y aircraftwith appropriate navqauonat equipment

~(;PS"RN.AV· will be able 10 use this procedure Lnder the prior attempt only' one user of

the Airport had t'l6 apnroonate equpment. It IS also our understar-dinq that t'18 new

oroced.rre noes not Change tnc current f1i;r1t path :0 areas over resme ntral areas. oi.t

-wctves a change In the fligrit path after it has crossed the coastline The City would

aporec.ate ~eceivlng a full bneflng cf this new procedure ana oresentation to the City S

Arrport Commission

4 NOTAMs - ·'!'.ider o.sserrunauon of the Cltys Fly Neighbor.,. Prograt'l IS an

ongoing goal for the City and the F.AAs participation in trial effort IS a Positive development.

Rarsmq the awareness of 111e users of the Airport regarding the qeograohlcally constrained

nature of the Airport's facilities IS a good interim step. but It cannot substitute for real runway

safety areas on the runway Use of the NOT A.Ms and other methods 0' outreach to pilots

operators and owners of aircraft In coruunction With runway safety' areas that meet the 70

knot standard will si[Jn,f:cantty increase the safety for everyone V;lfln D' livinq ne ar the

,A,Hp::>It. provldtng a bfleflflg to City staff and a presentation to the Cltys Airport Cornmis sron

on trus Issue WOL.I,j be a qood 'irst step In startmq the draloque on trus recommendation to

address the Airports rum•••.av safety Issues.

Aner many years of drscussion the Crty appreciates tile f !--.A.'5 recognition trat

'U'lwav safety systems should meet the 70 knot standard Consistent with formeAdmin-strater Blakevs statement thai safety unprovernents shoulc appy at noth ends ot tile

'U'1Way, [he City IS ready to Implement true '1'j knot runway safely system at both ends of

tre runway for the safety 0' those or board the aircraft ano for res dents liv!ng adjacent to

:t"e Airport If vc»: have any ouestic-isor comments crease do not hesitate tc contact the

City

::; ')cerel~'.

o Lamont Ewell

City Manager

cc ••.·ayor and City Counc:

~'/arsha Jones \'~outrle City Attorney

Robert 1rrnborn. Acting Airport :JlreCtor

Attachments

A. ESCO Modelinq (Marc]: 2008)

:J lJavld lJe'lnet Letter (January 20 2006,

C ESCC Modeling Data tf\llay JC 2006)
ARP-l Letter to Santa Monica City Manager - March 7, 2008

L:3 :-;ep~Jrtt'lenr

Q+- ~ro.,scc1naion

Associate Admll1'stralor

fer Airports

800 Independence Ave. SW

W""h,nglon, DC 20591

Federal Aviation

Administration

March 7, 2008

vlr, P Lamont Ewell

City \1anager

City of Santa Monica

I(i85 Main Street, Room 209

Santa Monica, CA 90401

RE: Engineered Material Arresting System at Santa Monica Airport

Dear Lamont:

Thank you very much for pulling your team together yesterday to discuss this important

subject. I trust that you received the Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS) graphic

showing approximate dimensions which we dispatched yesterday afternoon.

As promised, this letter generally outlines the four clements that we propose to move this

project forward:

1. EMAS: We are proposing that the City have the option to select either rhc 40-knot

installation at each runway end, as previously discussed in detail, or a 70-knot installation at

the departure end of Runway 21, as generally depicted in yesterday's graphic. The latter

includes consuming more current runway pavement than the FAA has previously been

willing to approve. Although there are additional operational impacts associated \••ith using

more pavement. we are willing to permit this impact, as the City so forcefully argued for the

protection ofa 1000-foot Runway Safety Area (70-knot EM AS equivalent) in our recent

meeting here in Washington. Of course. selecting this option will mean that nothing is done

elsewhere on the runway that would further shorten its length. We, nonetheless, hope that

the City will select the 70-knot installation, as it clearly addresses whatever safety risk may

exist on this already safe airfield; that is. coverage of97% of your operations including 90';'0

of the Category C and D operations.

2. Hold Line: We propose moving the hold lines on both taxiways to the approximate

position of the current IFR hold line on Taxiway A and making those hold lines applicable

to all aircraft, IFR, and VFR. This should help insure that, in circumstances when an aircraft

15 held for departure. the noise and emissions experienced on properties adjoining the airport

are decreased The emissions should go back down the taxiway, Slaying on the airport. and

the noise off the airport will he sideline noise. which is naturally less than exhaust noise.
3. PEEER R'\A V Departure: Our Air Traffic Organization has accelerated its work in

redesigning this departure at the request of my office. As you know. the former departure

was not successful, as we were not able to achieve 3 nautical miles separation from LAX

departures, The redesigned PEEER is virtually ready for announcement and public release.

We certainly arc hoping for success this time. and if we achieve it. the procedure should

very substantially decrease the number of aircraft held idling on the ground at SMO, as

departures will run independently from the LAX departures, except to the south. This is an

operational benefit to the aircraft as well as a noise and emissions benefit to folks on the

ground,

4. 'JOTAMs: As we discussed, the FAA has recently transitioned to electronic Notices to

Airmen (NOrAMs) We propose to add two items along with the NOTAMs whenever a

pilot files a flight plan into or out of Santa Monica, The first order of business in safety is

prevention; thus, the pilot will get an FAA InFO (Information For Operators) as part of a

Runway Safety Area Awareness Program, This InFO will describe the particular

circumstances of the Santa Monica Airport, including the absence of Runway Safety Areas.

and provide operational best practices for avoiding overruns. Further. the pilot will get a

copy of the Santa Monica "Fly Neighborly" program, including operations and noise

abatement procedures. which you developed. Again, we're aiming at increased safety and

mitigation of impacts on those around the airport,

I challenged my staff to put aside their previous work on this matter and approach the

problem WIth fresh eyes and a dean sheet of paper. I believe they have done exactly that, as

evidenced by these four elements.

As we discussed, Ihave already blocked March 25, 200H, on my calendar to come to Santa

Monica to discuss these clements in detail with your staffand the Council. In the meantime.

I will be happy to answer any questions that may arise and hope that the Council will see fit

to forego further action on its pending ordinance banning certain aircraft from the airport.

D! Kirk Shaffer

Associate Administrator

for Airports

cc: Chairman James L. Obcrstar

Chairman Henry A. Waxman

Congresswoman Jane Hannan

Acting Administrator Robert A. Sturgell

2
U.S.Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

Associate Administrator

for Airports

800 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, DC 20591

November 26, 2007

The Honorable Richard Bloom

Mayor, City of Santa Monica

1685 Main Street, # 209

Santa Monica, CA 90401

Dear Mayor Bloom and Members of the Council:

As you remember, I spoke before the Council on August 28 ofthis year. At that time, I

outlined the FAA's determination that it would be possible to install an effective safety

enhancement (an EMAS system) at each end of the runway, without significantly affecting

use of the airport. Such an enhancement is still available, and that there is no justification

for further limitation on the use of the airport for safety reasons. My testimony was in

furtherance of my commitment to you and the management of your airport to keep the lines

of communication open and to take personal ownership of addressing your concerns.

Your proposed revision to Section 10.04/06/150, however, changes the conversation

altogether. It shifts from what we heretofore accepted as your good faith concerns about

safety to one about unreasonable denial of access to an important, federally-obligated

reliever airport in our national system.

The proposed ordinance would ban category C and D aircraft at SMO. The preamble to the

ordinance and other statements by city officials suggest several reasons for the ban. These

include:

• The airport was designed as a B-II airport and was designed for small general

aviation aircraft.

• The runway is not safe for operation of category C and D aircraft, because of the

nonstandard runway safety areas (RSAs) and because the runway is "too short" for

these aircraft.

• Current FAA standards require an RSA at Santa Monica Airport, and this

requirement can't be modified or waived.

• The location of residential communities near the runway ends creates an unusual risk

for these communities.

• The "conformance plan" banning category C and D aircraft is consistent with the

1984 Settlement Agreement and federal law.

• The FAA proposed runway end enhancements do not meet the RSA standards for

category C and D operations.
2

As I made clear in my testimony in August, the airport was not designed for small general

aviation aircraft. The runway was built specifically for the large, multi-engine aircraft being

manufactured by Douglas and has always been used by some number of general aviation

aircraft larger than the B category.

The runway is safe for any operation permitted by the aircraft certification manual for that

aircraft type. Accordingly, the runway may be too short for certain operations but will not

be too short for any operation that requires less runway length than the runway available.

The RSA standard is part of FAA's airport design standards and is not an operating

requirement of condition. No FAA aircraft operating rule requires a standard RSA, and

there is no basis in FAA regulations for prohibition of any operation based on the status of

the RSA.

Having a residential community close to the end of the runway does not affect the safety of

normal operations. Rather, it increases the potential for injury from an aircraft accident off

the end ofthe runway. For that reason, FAA standards define a runway protection zone

(RPZ), an area off the end of a runway end that is free of incompatible land uses, including

residential areas. Many communities have undertaken to buyout homes and other

incompatible uses in RPZs, often with financial assistance from the FAA. To our

knowledge, Santa Monica has not seriously considered this option, even though it is the only

certain way to remove all risk ofharrn to persons or property on the ground in those areas.

You will recall that I reiterated in my August testimony the FAA's willingness to help SMO

establish RPZs and to fund the project, just as we have across the country.

The proposed ban on category C and D aircraft is not consistent with the Settlement

Agreement or the city's other obligations for reasonable access to the airport. The safety of

an aircraft's operation is a function of the requirements for that operation in the aircraft

certification manual. If the runway meets those requirements, there is no safety basis for

prohibition of that operation. The airport's design category is not relevant to a safety

determination for that operation. Accordingly, the city has not provided a reasonable basis

for the restriction of aircraft types that are using the airport in full compliance with FAA

safety regulations.

If the FAA determines that a restriction on the use of SMO is unreasonable and unjustly

discriminatory, that restriction would be in violation of the city's grant assurances, its

surplus property deed restrictions, the Settlement Agreement, various U.S. Constitution

provisions, and quite possibly the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990. Let me speak

very frankly, ladies and gentlemen. What you are considering by this proposed ordinance is

flatly illegal as drafted.

The FAA is responsible, as you know, for the enforcement of each of these requirements.

The city should expect the agency to expeditiously use its authority and all available means,

if the ordinance is adopted as proposed, to insure that all federal rights, investments, and

obligations are protected and that no aircraft is denied access to SMO.
3

That route is definitely not the Federal Aviation Administration's preference. As I stated in

August, the FAA's preference is the use ofan engineered material arresting system at each

end of the runway. This would be a substantial safety enhancement for SMO, which can be

obtained with the minimum loss of runway necessary for an EMAS bed that meets FAA

design standards. That safety enhancement would be of equal benefit to aircraft crews and

the communities near the runway ends. It would be a federal investment of millions of

dollars in the safety of your citizens. It is where our money and yours should be spent. If

the city desires further protection for citizens living near the end of the runway, it should

also consider implementation of the FAA standard for a runway protection zone, which is

designed specifically for that purpose.

I hope that you will keep the lines of communication open with a view toward implementing

the safety enhancements I have reiterated above. I am at your disposal in that regard and am

willing to meet with you on short notice to make them happen. I encourage you to pick that

course of action, rather than the ill-considered ordinance that is before you presently.
OCT 1 2 Z001

The Honorable Jane Harman

House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congresswoman Harman:

Thank you for your letter of August 14 about Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO) in

Santa Monica, California. I apologize for the delay in answering your letter. The Federal

Aviation Administration has proposed that the city of Santa Monica (city) install two

engineered material arresting systems (EMAS), one at each end of the runway. These EMAS

beds would stop an aircraft of 12,500 pounds or more that overruns the end of the runway at

a speed up to 40 knots. It would also substantially slow aircraft at higher speeds, although

not even a standard EMAS or runway safety area can guarantee to contain all overruns. Your

letter refers to different proposals, but FAA has consistently preferred a 130-foot EMAS bed

with a 25-foot or 30-foot setback from the runway end. The current proposal benefits from

the manufacturer's finding that the smaller setback is acceptable.

The FAA proposal would result in the unprecedented loss of nearly 150 feet of runway at

SMO. This is because of the limited space available off the runway ends. FAA design

standards provide for the maximum runway safety area practicable. An improvement that

would adversely affect the use, of the airport is not practicable. The loss of 150 feet of

runway will have some effect on operations. However, that lost isjustified by the fact that it

will achieve a significant safety improvement. Also, it is the minimum length necessary to

install, an EMAS that meets the 40-knot performance provided in the FAA EMAS

specification.

As your letter notes, a larger EMAS bed may stop aircraft at speeds above 40 knots.

However, EMAS beds that provide performance higher than 40 knots require the taking of

more runway, with a corresponding adverse impact on use of the airport. There have been no

overruns by a jet aircraft at SMO, and we have no basis to conclude the likelihood of a higher

speed overrun justifies imposing a significant restriction on the users of the airport.

The FAA considered five criteria for review of runway end improvements at SMO, and we

believe the FAA proposal best meets these goals:

(l) make an improvement in safety for aircraft crew and passengers;

(2) reduce the likelihood of an overrunning aircraft reaching a residential area;

(3) have a minimal adverse impact on the utility of the airport;

(4) avoid moving the runway touchdown point and the beginning of the takeoff roll closer

to the communities; and

(5) be feasible from an engineering and cost standpoint.
2

SMO is one of the most important reliever airports in the country, ranking 15th in the

United States. Reducing the runway length further could severely undermine the airport's

role as a reliever for Los Angeles International Airport and other air carrier airports in the

southern California region. Shortening the SMO runway further would also divert jet traffic

to other airports in the region.

We will continue to work with the city to agree on a final arrangement for runway end

improvements. However, we believe the loss of runway at an important and busy airport

should be limited to what is absolutely necessary.

If I can be of further help, please contact me or Ms. Megan Rosia, Assistant Administrator

for Government and Industry Affairs, at (202) 267-3277.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Sturge

Acting Adminis ator
Presentation to Santa Monica City Council

D. Kirk Shaffer

Associate Administrator for Airports

Federal Aviation Administration

August 28, 2007

Introduction

Mr. Chairman, members of the Council: First, we thank you for the opportunity to discuss

our ideas for the enhancement of the runway safety areas at Santa Monica Airport, and to

answer your questions. We also want to express our sincere appreciation to Bob Trimborn,

Martin Tachiki, and the other city staff who have worked very hard on the development and

review of the several proposals for improving the runway ends. We fully understand the

concerns about the lack of standard runway safety areas, or RSAs, at the airport. Given the

terrain, it would just not be feasible to add standard RSAs on either end of the runway.

At the same time, we recognize that this airport serves a very important need in the regional

and national airport systems. The airport has more than 160,000 operations a year because

it's a good, well-run airport, in an area with a strong demand from all segments of aviation.

Many of the operations at the airport are recreational, but a significant number are businessrelated, and are part of the city's and the region's business economy.

Along with its safety responsibilities, the FAA has the responsibility of assuring reasonable

access to federally assisted airports by all segments of the aviation community. The City has

similar obligations, under its obligations to the Federal government and under the 1984

settlement agreement, and I'm sure the City takes its responsibilities as seriously as we do.

Background

We do think there is an opportunity to enhance the safety of the runway ends at the airport,

and we have in good faith tried to identify ways to improve the airport's runway safety areas.

I would point out that RSAs are not required at a general aviation airport like SMO, but they

have the same benefits as they do at a commercial airport, and we think it's important to try

to get them to the extent practical.

Just to be clear

Before I talk about our decision, I want to say we know that feelings run pretty high on this

issue, on both sides-the community, and the airport users. The City and the FAA accepted

comments from both the public and from aircraft operators and businesses using the airport,

and I personally read every one of those comments. There are a couple things I would like
to make clear right up front, because there seem to be some misconceptions, and I think it

will help to focus the discussion on the real issues.

First, the RSA issue we're discussing today is about safety benefits, and that's all. Federal law

provides ways to formally consider measures to mitigate aircraft noise or emissions, but

safety standards can't be used to get there. Second, the airport may not meet every design

standard that we use to fund new construction, although it does meet most of them. But

that in itself doesn't limit the classes of aircraft that can use the airfield, at Santa Monica or

any other airport. Third, there is simply no safety basis to limit jets at this airport.

Statistically jet aircraft have a better safety record than piston engine aircraft. Jet engines are

more reliable than piston engines, and jet aircraft generally have more power, especially on

one engine. In fact, the larger business jet types are built to the same standards as

commercial airliners. Fourth, the airport doesn't get an unusual proportion of jet traffic.

Eighteen to 20 thousand jet operations out of 160,000 total operations is about 12 percent

of the airport's operations. This is typical for busy general aviation reliever airports, and far

less than some. Teterboro in New Jersey, in comparison, has about 60 percent jet

operations.

Finally, I sometimes see the complaint that an idea doesn't, quote, "guarantee" safety. We at

FAA are continuously working to improve the safety of every aspect of aviation. But we can

never know where or how the next accident will happen, any more than you could know that

driving on the highway. We do what we can to reduce the probability of an accident, and to

mitigate the damage if one happens, but we can never guarantee a particular event won't

happen. However, as the result of the extensive oversight of aviation safety in this country,

aviation accidents are very rare, and getting more rare each year.

Staff Report

We read the staff report for this discussion, and I would like to mention some points on

which we differ with it. The report gives the City's goal as "maximizing" safety, but not

preserving the utility of the airport. In the real world, we get the best safety outcome we

can, consistent with the airport serving its purpose in the system.

Second, the report states the FAA design is deficient because it does not meet category B-2

or D-2 airport design standards. This just isn't a realistic goal for this airport, and the real

goal is to achieve safety improvements without losing the value of the runway and the

airport. We build RSAs off the end of the runway to the extent we can; but we don't take

away the use of the runway to get them.

The report says the FAA design extends the runway closer to homes. That's not true. The

RSA would be extended closer to the community, but the runway ends would both be

farther from the airport boundary (and the community) than they are now. The report says

the FAA design would only benefit aircraft above 12,500 lb. Actually an EMAS would have

some arresting effect on aircraft below 12,500 lb.; it's just not designed for that. For aircraft
well below 12,500 lb. that require less runway length, there is no need for additional

measures, because the existing runway already effectively provides an RSA.

The report says the aircraft fleet at SMO has evolved to larger and faster aircraft. Certainly

not larger. The airport as it is today was built for DC-4's and -6's, which are larger than a

Gulfstream G-IV. That's why the runway is the same width as the runways at LAX, and the

pavement is far stronger than the 60,000-lb. limit imposed on operations today. Jets are

generally faster on takeoff and final approach than props, but not always, and not by an

order of magnitude. In the end, the fleet change just reflects the national trend toward

modern engine technology; the percentage of jet traffic at SMO is typical for reliever

airports.

The report says the EMAS would capture only about 50% of overruns. The 50% number is

taken from an FAA design standard advisory circular, and cannot be used to predict events

at a particular airport. In any event the national data includes many incidents where a

runway was wet or covered with snow and ice. An airport with a dry runway more than the

average, like SMO, would be expected to have fewer overruns, and to have any overruns be

at lower speed.

The report says that aircraft undershooting to any degree would hit the retaining wall.

Actually undershooting aircraft would have 155 feet of level ground before the runway end,

in addition to the 1,000 feet before the touchdown zone. That's more than today. And the

consequence of hitting the hill at that point today isn't really any different. Maybe that's why

undershoots at SMO that damage aircraft are rare: One since 1982.

FAA approach to runway end improvements

Let me start by talking about the process we used to consider improving a runway safety

area. FAA Order 5200.9, Financial Feasibility and Equivalenry of Runwqy S eifetyArea Improvements

and Engineered Material Arresting Systems define the way we consider how a runway end can be

improved:

First, "Any portion of land that will increase the RSA, even if it is but an incremental

increase (see Paragraph 4a below) and will not result in meeting the standard fully is

preferable and will serve as a starting point for the consideration of additional alternatives."

Second, "Incremental gains must be obtained whenever possible .... Other alternatives

would then be considered for obtaining the remainder of the safety area."

The alternative of reducing runway length can be considered only when the existing runway

length exceeds the length required for the aircraft types expected to use the airport. Since

Santa Monica's 4,987-foot runway does not provide excess runway length for many aircraft

types using the airport, reducing runway length to get more runway safety area is not an

option.
Third, "when it is not practicable to obtain a safety area that meets current standards,

consideration should be given to enhancing the safety of the area beyond the runway end

with the installation of EMAS. So that's what we did.

When we started, there weren't really any good options. At the time, engineered material

arresting systems, or EMAS, could not be installed in a very small area, because the EMAS

bed needed to be set back too far from the runway end. If it was too close, as we learned at

LaGuardia Airport, the jet blast would eventually break up the EMAS surface. At one time

we even looked into a military-style arrestor net, but for several reasons that simply wouldn't

work at this airport.

EMAS

About a year ago, it became apparent to us that improvements in the EMAS technology

would allow an EMAS bed with satisfactory performance to be installed in a very confined

area, close to the end of the runway.

FAA standards define a standard EMAS installation as having a 70-knot performance-that

is, the ability to stop the aircraft for which the EMAS was designed if that aircraft enters the

EMAS at up to 70 knots. However, few EMAS installations are able to meet the standard,

and our specification considers performance of 40 knots or better as sufficient to go ahead

with a project.

We have favored the 40-knot EMAS system for Santa Monica for two reasons.

First, there isn't enough room off the ends of the runway for the EMAS, so some runway

will be required. It is essential that the use of good, existing runway be kept to the absolute

minimum. We're not going to solve one problem and create another.

Second, the use of the most compact possible EMAS system allows us to use that solution at

both ends of the runway, with benefits for operations in both directions, and the same

benefits for the communities off each runway end.
Declared Distances

Another idea that the city staff and the FAA considered is the use of "declared distances."

That means defining the runway pavement to be shorter than it actually is. The effect is that

an operation that would require most of the available runway length would not be allowed.

We ultimately found that declared distances were an unnecessary restriction on the use of

the airport, given the greater benefits of EMAS.

First, the declared distances would have no benefit for smaller aircraft, because they can

operate on shorter runway distances and therefore already have an effective RSA. Second,

declared distances have little benefit for aircraft above 12,500 lb. that would be stopped by

the EMAS bed anyway. Aircraft just below 12,500 lb. would also get some benefit from the

EMAS.

And finally, against these minimal benefits, there would be a substantial adverse effect on

operations. In effect, operations that can be conducted routinely with perfect safety on the

available runway, and would be stopped by the EMAS if there was a problem, would be

prohibited. There is simply no safety case for this kind of restriction, and it would have to

be considered discriminatory and unreasonable.

Moreover, more than half of these aircraft operate under commercial or fractional

ownership rules, and those operations already operate under restrictions that require pilots to

calculate available runway at 80% or even 60% of the actual runway length. So they're

already operating with a safety cushion.

Evaluation of ideas

Because there is so little area to work with off the end of the runway, all of the ideas

considered by the city and the FAA had some effect on the usable length of the runway

itself.

This is unprecedented. While we have approved declared distances for much longer

runways at some commercial airports, we have not approved the use of existing runway itself

to add to the runway safety area.

Since there were multiple interests affected, positively and negatively, we defined 5 goals for

consideration of a solution. Any enhancement to the runway ends at SMO should:

(1) make an actual improvement in safety for aircraft crew and passengers;

(2) reduce the likelihood of an overrunning aircraft reaching a residential area;

(3) have a minimal adverse impact on the utility of the airport;

(4) avoid moving the runway touchdown point and beginning of the takeoff roll closer to
the communities at each end of the runway than they are now; and

(5) be feasible from an engineering and cost standpoint.

(1) and (2) Only EMAS provides an actual physical capability of stopping or slowing an

overrunning aircraft. (3) Only the smallest EMAS system that meets FAA standards meets

the requirement of a minimal effect on airport operations. Larger EMAS systems and

declared distances begin to have substantial adverse effects.

We know the City's consultant found minimal effect on operations of a loss of 300 feet of

runway, but we have looked at the same data several ways, and have concluded the impact

would be much higher. (4) Declared distances meet this goal but not others. If EMAS is

used, it should be the shortest EMAS bed that meets FAA specifications.

The larger the EMAS bed, the closer every landing and takeoff roll would be to the

community at the end of the runway. (5) We don't have exact information on what can be

done and what it would cost.

However, airports have graded terrain in far more challenging locations to obtain levelland

for a runway safety area. Here, we are only looking for about 30 additional feet on each end.

So, it appears to be a reasonable and feasible solution, but obviously an engineering study

would be needed for a final determination.

Conclusion

The one solution that meets or best meets each of these goals is the most compact possible

EMAS installation (i.e., a 40-knot performance EMAS bed) at each end of the runway. This

system provides an actual, physical stopping effect on overrunning aircraft that directly

benefits both persons on the aircraft and the areas off the ends of the runway.

Stating this decision a little differently, we find that it is practicable to get a 40-knot EMAS

bed at each end of the runway, after some earthwork that appears to be feasible from the

standpoints of both engineering and cost. This solution requires an unprecedented sacrifice

of runway, which was vehemently opposed by most airport users. Nevertheless, with a loss

of runway of less than 150 feet, we believe that the change in use of the airport from this

amount of runway loss would not be an unreasonable restriction on access.

Because the substantial benefits of an EMAS system that meets FAA standards can be

obtained with the loss of no more than 150 feet of runway, we believe it would not be

reasonable to further shorten the runway to obtain greater performance from the EMAS.

I hope the City will agree, and that we can find a way to get this project done.
•..

1200 EIGllmENTII STREET NW. smm 400

\\ASIllNGTON. DC 200al3·2527

Tel; (202) 711;{·9000. Fax: (202) ;mt-ll;{64

E-mail: inro@nbaa.org • Web: www.nbaa.org

August 24, 2007

D. Kirk Shafer

Associate Administrator for Airports

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20591

Re: Santa Monica Airport

Dear Mr. Shafer:

The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), on behalf of its more than 8,000

members many of whom utilize and/or are based at the Santa Monica Airport (SMa), takes

strong exception on both policy and legal grounds to any action that would sacrifice runway

capacity for RSA or other enhancements not required by law or by regulation. Nonetheless,

NBAA will not challenge the airport access restriction described in your letter of July 31, 2007

to Robert Trimborn, the SMa Airport Manager, for the reasons discussed below.

The infrastructure supporting our national air transportation system is made up of

precious resources, none more precious than runway capacity. Runway capacity needs to be

increased, and any action that reduces that capacity is, quite literally, a step in the wrong

direction. That is even more so where, as here, the obvious intent underlying the reduction is to

limit or bar a class of users, the reduction is not required by law or regulation, and the reduction

would produce little if any safety benefit.l

In our letter of February 22, 2007, we noted the importance of SMa as a general aviation

airport and the history of the airport's efforts to bar or substantially limit jet operations. We also

emphasized that as a matter of sound policy, the FAA should not allow RSAs to be retrofitted at

airports unless there was a clear consensus within all parts of the aviation community as to

whether, when and how that should be done. Finally, we pointed out that there is a mandatory

process for developing such a consensus, namely the procedures required by the Airport Noise

and Capacity Act of 1990 and Part 161 of the FAA's regulations whenever an airport action

would restrict access by Stage 2 and Stage 3 jet aircraft, as it would here. All of those

considerations remain applicable.

That aside, we recognize that in this one instance, there are some unique circumstances

that arguably mitigate in favor of allowing the measures outlined in your letter to go forward.

1 That is particularly true with respect to the proposed EMAS at the end of Runway 3, since that

runway is used 5% of the time. An EMAS at the end of that runway is unlikely to provide any

meaningful safety benefit given the small number of operations and would create a

negative operational impact wholly out of proportion to any marginal safety benefit achieved.
First, while the loss of 145' of usable runway distance will have a material impact on jet

operations that will require operational planning to accommodate, the airport still will be

functional. Second, there are unique topographical and other space considerations that come into

play at SMO that are not found at other airports. However, we emphasize that we are taking this

position solely for the purpose of bringing an end not only to the RSA matter but also to all

efforts by this airport to limit or exclude jet operations. We would expect that if the measures

outlined in your letter are implemented, the FAA would prohibit SMO from pursuing any

additional attempts to reduce the utility of the runways at SMO, or to otherwise restrict jet

operations at SMO, thus securing the future of SMO as an unrestricted general aviation airport

(as contemplated by both the applicable federal airport grant assurances and the 1984 agreement

between the FAA and the City of Santa Monica).

There also are some issues raised by the memorandum accompanying your letter to Mr.

Trimborn, to the extent that the memorandum reflects developing FAA policy. We agree that

any airport enhancement must have a "minimal adverse impact on the utility of the airport."

That, in effect, is the ANCA/Part 161 test for an access restriction, i.e., anything other than a

restriction with a de minimis effect. We also agree that a flight is adversely affected if it were

required to lose a passenger or reserve fuel? However, the memorandum seems to imply that

this test should then be applied to an FAA planning guideline that uses 500 flights per year as the

threshold for substantial impact. That guideline may work for other purposes, but it plainly does

not apply to an ANCA/Part 161 analysis, nor should it. If a user flies in and out of an airport no

more than a few times a year, access to that airport still is critical to that user. In truth, an access

restriction has a de minimis effect only when, as here, the users are willing to abide by it.

We genuinely appreciate the effort that you and your staff have dedicated to this matter

and the openness of the process. As always, if you have any questions we would be delighted to

respond.

Sincerely

Steve Brown

Senior Vice President Operations

CC: David Bennett, Director

Office of Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-1

Federal Aviation Administration

2 The other cited examples, a 500 lb. reduction in fuel or a reduction in fuel that would reduce

range by 200 nautical miles, to the extent they are not overtaken by the other examples, should

have lower thresholds. We also do not understand either the purpose or the source of the 60%

useful load test, which at the very least appears to be redundant.
5: 43 PM FAA/O~C OF THE ADMIN NO. 0667 P. 2

COMtAITrE<: ON

HOMElAND SeCUffiTY

- COMMliil!E ON

Ei'lEFjGY AND COMME:RCE

SUa.tbNMln, I; OJ.

:'"fLQ:~""'U •.~r;;.TJrON!O

f>H;) THf, !rm:CIA'"

SveeOMMItt&.oll

l:NE.Ile~ ""0 AlR OUALITY

Sve~Q ~"" rn;" Ql<

Ir'lTI!l.~NCE, lfU:oRMI\TJOIJ S~AfI;1NG.

NlD TtRROII:S'" Rl~ A$M$$"~"

CHAIR

SUGCOMr..l1TTr.< ON

80"0(." ~1""'_e•••••e

G\.aa,I>.L COutITEf"EJ\f1QAt;~

BLue OOG CO~L1TlOIll

CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN

36TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA

NEw Cr:MOCAA"r COALITION

NAT1O!'IAlSEcunrrv WO.,.NC G"ou,

C().QIAlR

CONGRESSIONAl.

SPACEPO~ACAUCUS

CO·C.IAlR

August 14, 2007

Marion C. Blakey

Administrator

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Ave, SW

Washington, D.C. 20591-0001

/

Dear Administrator Blakey,

I am writing to express my deep disappointment with the FAA's decision regarding runway

safety measures for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). After months of input from SMO officials and

the surrounding community, I believe that the FAA's recommendation to mitigate the risks of

runway overshoots is insufficient to guarantee the safety of airport users or the neighboring residents.

Over the last year the length of the proposed Engineered Material Arresting System (E~S)

has been shortened from a 250-foot proposal in December. to a 165-foot bed in. Mtrch, to now a 130-

foot bed with a 25-foot setback at each end. Additionally, despite requests from SMO officials that

declared distances be applied as well, no declared distances were included in the decision.

According to the FAA and to the manufacturer of the EMAS beds, this 155-fooUo!al EMAS

bed is guaranteed to stop aircraft landing at a speed at or below 40-knots. At SMO, planes traveling

at this speed encompass only 50 percent of runway overruns, That leaves half of all aircraft

operations at the airport in danger of continuing through an EMAS boo, down an embankment where

they threaten to cross busy streets and enter nearby residential neighborhoods. Such a.n incident

could be tragic.

Continued access to 'the airport needs to be balanced with safety for all- pilots, passengers

and neighbors alike. I do not believe that the current FAA recommendation meers this standard. I

hope we can continue to work together to design safety enhancements that provide greater

confidence to all,

-.;~ ...EHARMA~~

R~~PONCTO:

lI.~:

o 2321 ROS~C;I\I\N6 AVEltUe

$UIT6 3270

E~ SOOUNDO,CA 50145

PHONE: IJl0) 5~~:lB

FAY.:(310) ~5

WA~rJ.~:

o NOG RAY!lURN HO\J$I; OFACl< BUIU)IN~

WASHl1~GTON. oc 20515

PHoN~: (202) 22s-anc

FAX: {202l 22s..7290

W.J!.1llJHlU2I!l:

o 5«<' NORTH ,li.VA\.Olll SOIJ1.EV,o.IID

$l)ln 307

WIl.l.<I...,GTo.'Il. CA 907411

hIONG; [310] 54~a:2e2

FA:<: (~10154H250

Website: w-NW.~I."SC.gov/harmar)

Pftll<"".Q ON ll("'CUQ 'APEA

Fo.x I'r-on 2£122675047 08/15/£17 17:28 Pg: 2
Associate AdmlrttslralOr

for Airports

SOOlndependeflce Avenue. SW

Washington. DC 20591 us. Depa'tmem

of Tronsport'crtioo

Federal Aviation

AdmInIstrdion

July 31, 2007

Mr. Robert Trirnborn

Airport Manager, Santa Monica Airport

Office of the Airport Manager

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South

Santa Monica, CA 90405

Dear Mr.~W--

At our meeting on June 12, we presented our view that it should he possible to obtain a

significant safety enhancement at Santa Monica Airport (SMO) through the use of a

compact engineered material arresting system (EMAS) at each end of the runway. With

some grading, which we believe to be feasible, this can be done in a way that minimizes any

adverse effect on the use of the airport. At the meeting. we also agreed to consider two

other factors: the performance of a 40-knot EMAS bed for aircraft entering the bed at

speeds higher than 40 knots. and the use of declared distances in addition to the EMAS.

We obtained the EMAS performance information from ESCO, the manufacturer of EMAS,

and that information was also provided to the City. That information showed that an EMAS

bed will substantially slow an aircraft slightly above the design stopping speed of the

EMAS, but the slowing effect diminishes as speed increases. No system can guarantee that

there will never be an incident of some kind, however, and we believe that reducing runway

length further to protect against an increasingly narrow set of conceivable circumstances is

not warranted. Runway safety areas are designed for the protection of aircrews, not to

guarantee that an aircraft will never get beyond the safety area. For protection of persons

and property near the end of the runway, FAA.design standards provide for a nmway

protection zone that limits the land uses in that area. The runway protection zone is

recommended but not required at general aviation airports like SMO.

We appreciate the presentation at the meeting by Coffman Associates on the estimated

impacts of various proposed actions on operations at the airport. We considered that

information, as well as our own analysis of essentially the same operations data. We also

considered both the benefits and operational effects of using 300-foot declared distances in

addition to an EMAS installation.

After consideration of all the information provided by the city on June 12 and the additional

information obtained since then, we believe the following measures will be a real

enhancement of safety at SMO. The measures will affect some individual flights, but will

not affect the general use of the airport and its value to the Southern California region. The

attached paper explains the decision in more detail, but in summary it is:
• The goal, which we believe is feasible, is to install an EMAS unit with 40-knot

performance with the minimum taking of existing runway pavement Taking runway

for an EMAS installation is unprecedented and is considered acceptable in this case

only because it is essential to achieve the 40-knot performance provided in FAA

specifications. Taking more runway is not justified, because a larger EMAS is not

required to obtain an installation that meets FAA specifications.

• We believe that with feasible grading, an EMAS bed can be installed at each end of

the runway with a total reduction in runway length of less than 150 feet. Obviously

engineering work wiJI be required to confirm the exact numbers.

• Grading of each runway end to provide additional levelland at the end of the

runway, to the extent possible without moving the perimeter road (although possibly

reducing the perimeter road to one lane at the runway ends).

• Installation of a DO-foot EMAS bed with a setback of 25 feet from the runway end

at each end of Runway 3-21. Total distance required for the two EMAS beds would

be 310 feet.

• The 25-foot setback at the far end of the runway would be considered to be a

"stopway" which, under FAA standards, can be included in take-off run available

(TOR A) and landing distance available (LDA) as calculated by pilots for operation

at the airport.

• The use of declared distances would provide a virtual runway safety area for aircraft

too light to benefit from the EMAS. Most of those aircraft do not require the full

runway for most operations, so there would be little adverse effect, but also little real

benefit. For aircraft heavy enough to benefit from the EMAS, the EMAS itself

provides a system that meets FAA performance specifications, and the impact on

operations that would result from further shortening of the runway through declared

distances is not necessary.

We look forward to any further comments you and your consultants have on this paper, and

to speaking to the City Council on August 28, If you have any questions, feel free to call me

at (202) 267-9471.

Sincerely

DMt::

Associate Administrator

for Airports

2
Federal Aviation

Administration

Memorandum

Date: July 31, 2007

To: or for Airports, ARP-I

From:

Prepared by: Dave Bennett, Director, Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-l

Subject: Santa Monica Runway Enhancements

Attached is a paper discussing our conclusion on the review of the runway enhancements at

Santa Monica Airport.

Attachment
SMO RunV\'ay End Enhancements

Santa Monica Airport (SMO) is an important general aviation reliever airport for Los Angeles

International Airport and a popular and valuable airport in its own right fur business and recreational

aviation in the Southern California Region. The single 4987' X 150' runway safely accommodates all

aircraft currently using the airport, including the Gulfstream G-IV. However, the airport's location and

terrain make it impossible to achieve a standard runway safety area (RSA) at the runway ends.

RSAs are designed to provide a safe stopping area for aircraft that leave the runway pavement Also, the

cities of Santa Monica and Los Angeles have elected not to implement a runway protection zone (RPZ)

beyond either runway end by removing residential and other non-compatible land uses. RPZs are

provided in FAA airport design standards to avoid concentrations of persons in the areas immediately

off the end of a runway,

Reeo mmended Enhancements

On these facts, the FAA sought to identify runway end safety enhancements at SMO that would, to the

extent possible:

(1) make an actual improvement in safety for aircraft crew and passengers;

(2) reduce the likelihood of an overrunning aircraft reaching a residential area;

(3) have a minimal adverse impact on the utility of the airport,

(4) avoid moving the runway touchdown point and beginning of the takeoff roll

closer to the communities at each end of the runway than they are now, and

(5) be feasible from an engineering and cost standpoint.

After consideration of the views of the City of Santa Monica, airport users, and the communities near

the airport, and consideration of recent developments in aircraft arresting technology, we believe the

following actions will meet all of the above objectives:

1 Add land at each end of the runway through addition of fill and use of retaining walls, to extend

through the inside lane of the perimeter road at each end. The perimeter road will remain in the current

location hut he reduced to one lane for several hundred feet at each end of the runway. We estimate this

action could result in approximately the following distances of levelland off each end of the runway:

Runway 21

Runway 3

Total

100'

40'

140'

2. Install a DO' engineered material arresting system (EMAS) at each end of the runway, using as much

land as is available at each end, and using existing runway only to the extent neces ..sary.

3. Mark the threshold of the runway at each end 25' from the end of the EMAS bed. This provides a

setMck 10 minimize jet blast damage to the EMAS bed on takeoff.
Effect on RunvnlY lengtlt

The above actions would have the following effects on runway length:

Existing runway length: 4987'

STEP 1

Total length of existing runway plus available land (after earthwork to level terrain):

4987'

+140'

5127'

Length of EM AS beds: 130' at each end

STEP 2

Remaining runway pavement with a 130' EM AS at each end:

5127'

-260'

4867'

STEP 3

Runway length. Runway pavement minus 25' setback between the EMAS bed and the runway threshold

at each end. This would be the new published runway length:

4867'

48]7'

STEP 4

Actual Distance available for takeoff and landing. Runway pavement minus 25' for EMAS setback

between the EMAS and the threshold, but without deducting the 25' setback at the far runway end. This

number represents the actual length of pavement from the runway threshold to the EMAS bed at the far

end of the runway. Because the 25' setback at the far end of the runway is considered "stop way" that

can be included in calculations for landing and takeoff, this number would also be the published landing

distance available (LDA) and the accelerate-stop distance available (ASDA) on takeoff:

4867'

-25'

4842'
Impact on Airport Operations and Utility

There IS no disposable or excess runway at SMO. The existing fleet mix already uses the existing

runway with significant weight penalties. 51\10's 5,OOO-footrunway is needed to accommodate not only

existing jet operations, but also smaller aircraft types. Any reduction in runway length will affect some

operations at the airport. The greater the reduction, the more operations are affected and the greater the

adverse effect.

A reduction ofless than 150 feet from the existing runway length is not expected to have a significant

impact on operations, either on operating weights or on the possible stage lengths of flights from the

airport. A loss of 100-150 feet from a runway with a length of 4,987 feet appears operationally

acceptable, yet with EMAS provides a safety benefit that exceeds that of a 300-foot declared distance, at

least for aircraft at or above about 12,500 lb. Even at this small reduction in runway length, however,

some operations would be affected, including the Gulfstream G-IV on take-off on long-range flights, the

G-rV landing below 50,000 lb. and the Learjet 4S take-off at 20,000 lb.

By taking into consideration realistic operational variables and matching them to the actual fleet mix at

SM0, and by taking into account real data and real operational considerations, the FAA determined that

reducing runway length 250-300 feet begins to have a significant effect on current operations. Tile City

estimated less than 300 flights a year are affected, looking only at 5 aircraft types, limiting impact to

flights over 1,500 nautical miles, and considering only takeoffs. Moreover, the City took the position

that there would be an adverse effect only if the operator was required to cancel an intended operation.

FAA analysis considered a flight adversely affected if that flight were required to lose a significant

amount of fuel or payload (e.g, 500 lb in fuel, a passenger, an impact on reserve fuel, or reduction in fuel

that would reduce range by more than 200 nautical miles), operate at less than 60 percent of useful load,

or would need to make an intermediate fuel stop on the way to its final destination with at least a 60

percent load. Operations of any aircraft below' 60% useful load are analogous to not being able to derive

substantial benefit from the aircraft's capabilities. While some flights only require operation with small

loads or a small number of passengers, an airport change that limits all flights of that aircraft to low

payload is clearly a restriction on use of the airport,

Moreover, FAA airport planning guidance defines the recommended length of a runway as a function of

many factors, one of the most notable being a runway length to accommodate the critical aircraft and the

longest nonstop distance to be flown by that aircraft from the airport. The runway length at SMO already

limits the operations of aircraft types that commonly use the airport, so any loss of runway is important.

A loss of just a few hundred feet has an impact on the accelerate-stop distance requirements of several

B-nand turboprops as well as turbojets,

In addition, Part 135 air taxi operations and Part 9lK fractional operations already require a reduction in

runway length for calculation of runway available. As a result, if the runway were shortened by even

300 feet, Part 135 operations would effectively have available only 2,812 feet for landing and Part 91K

operations would have available only 3,749 feet. This effect would clearly apply to many of the aircraft

using SMO, including smaller types until now considered by the City to be unaffected by a shorter

runway.
The analysis conducted by the FAA showed that 2,000 to 3,000 operations a year would be adversely

affected, Short- and medium-haul flights by large types generally were notaffected, although some

current operations to cities like Seattle, Denver, and Chicago by medium and smaller type aircraft would

be affected. Longer-range flights beyond the mid-west to the east coast would be substantially affected

by the loss 01'300 feet of runway, for many types. To put this impact in perspective, the FAA Airports

planning guideline for substantial use is 500 annual operations a year, and FAA Air Traffic uses the

effect on one operation per day as the threshold of significant impact, or 365 annual operations.

The conclusions of our analysis of the impacts on airport users remained the same through several

different methods of analysis, and were supported by the comments of airport users who responded to a

proposal presented at an FAAJCi ty meeting in December 2006, While user comments unanimously

opposed the December proposal, some comments by users indicated they were willing to sacrifice a

small amount of runway to obtain the benefits of a basic EMAS installation.

Several users indicated they would accept a 165-foot EMAS installation (130' EMAS bed and 35'

setback) on the departure end of'runway 21, for a loss orpsvement of slightly less than 165'. No users

supported the loss of more runway in order to provide a larger EMAS bed or declared distances.

EMAS effectiveness

A 130' EMAS bed with no setback from the runway end can stop the following aircraft types leaving the

runway at 40 knots, with at least the main gear coming to a rest in the EMAS bed.

These aircraft types represent frequent operations at SMO, and the weights listed are representative of

actual aircraft operating weights for SMO operations (as opposed to maximum certificated weights). The

weights indicated were derived primarily from users, aircraft manufacturer input, and FAA's own

research.

The EMAS bed will slow an aircraft leaving the runway at speeds higher than 40 knots, although the

reduction in speed diminishes as the speed increases above 40 knots. For example, the aircraft types

listed immediately above would exit the EMAS bed at the speeds indicated if entering the EMAS bed at

50 knots, 60 knots, and 70 knots respectively:

Leave runway/cnter EM AS

50 knots

60 knots

70 knots

Exit EMAS (in knots)

:5- high 20's

low 30's to low 40's

high 40's to high 50's
In sum, even a compact l30-foot EMAS bed would stop or significantly slow all of tile larger aircraft

types using s~m.

Additional measures

In order to supplement the benefits ofthe EMAS installation, the FAA recommends that:

• The City, with the cooperation and assistance of the FAA, implement a joint education and

information program with FAA based on the Flight Standards Service Information for Operators

(InfO).

• The City consider the feasibility of a property acquisition program to remove homes from the

RPZs, even if'the program removes only a few homes and does so over time. Such a program

would be eligible for FAA grant funding.

Conclusion. In summary, the addition of a small amount of land at each runway end through earthwork,

and the addition of a compact EfvlAS installation at each end of the runway, could provide the

significant safety benefits of an EMAS with a relatively small reduction in runway length. Specifically,

distance available for takeoff and landing would be reduced from the 4,987 feet available now to 4842

feet, a reduction of 145 feet.

Ihe DO-foot EMAS installation would stop any aircraft type using SMO that leaves the runway at a

speed up to 40 knots, and slow an aircraft moving faster than that. Additional measures, whether in the

form of a larger EMAS installation or use of declared distances to effectively shorten the runway, would

provide a diminishing enhancement of safety along with an increasingly adverse effect on normal

operations at the airport. Accordingly, such measures were not considered to meetthe objectives

outlined above.

Existing Runway

n Existing Level Pavement

I New Graded Addition

o 130' EMAS Bed
COMMITTEE ON

HOMELANOSECUAITY

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND COMMERCE

Sv BCOM..."EE ON

INTtU1G€Na:.IMOAMAll0..- SHAAIr~G.

At«) TE'RRO,,"SM RISK.Assess~eNT

CHAIR

SV3CCMMfT"rt.E. ON

TEUCQf.SoVlUNICJ..nO~s

AND 1llI! IN~ERNET

SUDCOMMmEE ON

E~nGYAl'loAIR OUAlITY SUJCOMl.Mn'E'£ ON

BoRDEII. MARI_e, "Nt>

(lLo ••••~ CCUNWl1CMOftlS"

BLUE DOG COALITION

CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN

36TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA

NEW DEMOCRAT COAUT10N

I'lAnONAl SECUIa",WORl<lN" GRoup

CO-CHAIR

CONGRESSIONAL

SPACE POWER CAUCUS

CO-CHAIR

June 5, 2007

Marion C. Blakey, Administrator

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

Dear AdminiswatOfB'iakey: ~: <h-

/"

Over the past year we have also spoken about the PEEER 1 RNA V Project at Santa

Monica Airport (SMO). This pilot project was intended to test new procedures using tbe

latest global positioning satellite technology coupled with sophisticated onboard flight

management systems. The combination leads to more precise arrival and departure

tracks, providing pilots with highly accurate navigation information in all types of

weather,

The pilot project was tested on NetJets operations at SMO. NetJets flights comprise

approximately 25% of SMO's daily jet operations. After initial testing ended in August

2006, there was a six-month period for review and analysis. The flnal report 'was

expected this month.

There were high expectations from your staff, constituents and me that the PEEER 1

RNA V procedures could soon be applied to all jets at SMO. Doing so would reduce the

amount of time jets sit at the end of the runway before take off, resulting in less idling on

the ground and therefore less jet fuel exhaust fumes spewing into adjacent

neighborhoods. Unfortunately, [have just learned that the FAA Western-Pacific

Regional office has concluded the program does not provide enough separation between

jets departing from SMO and aircraft departing from LAX.

My office was told that this means the FAA must go back and redesign the flight path

way points. After this, these will need to receive approval and be retested. We were told

this entire process is likely to take up to another year. I am sure you can understand my

frustration that this process is now delayed for a year.

ReSPON010:

a.~:

o 2321 ROSECRANS AVENUE

SUiTE 3270

EL SE<l\JNOO, CA 911245

PHONE' (310) 643-3536

FAX: (310) 643-6445

WM.!!!.!ll9J.OO, 0&:

o 2400 RAYBURN Houst OFFICE BUILDING

YIIASHlNG"lON, DC 2051!>

PHONE: {2021225-6220

FAX: (202122.&--729ll

W!LMINGWN:

o 644 NORTH AVALON SOULrVARl)

SU)TE 307 .

WILMINCTON, CA 90744

PHONE: {al 0) 548-8282

FAX: (310) 54$--8250

Website: 1rYWw.house.govlharrn<lr>

PAl/lTEe 00 IlECYCCED P.AP£A
June 5, 2007

Page 2

Also frustrating are statements by a local FAA representative at a recent Santa Monica

Airport Commission hearing which seemed to pull back from previous FAA discussions

regarding the installation of runway safety measures at SMO. The statements pulled back

from a concept plan preliminarily agreed to by the FAA and the City of Santa Monica

that a 250-foot Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS) bed be installed on the

west end of the runway and a 600-foot Runway Safety Area be designated on the east end

of the runway.

Jet flights at SMO have increased from 1,176 a year in 1983 to over 18,000 a year in

2004. As you know from our many conversations, I am seeking to fmd measures to

mitigate the impact of the jet noise and jet fuel odors, on neighbors, some of whom live

closer than 300 feet from the airport's runway.

Therefore, I urge you to expedite, as much as possible, the second round ofthe PEEER 1

RNA V pilot project. r also hope you will personally help to achieve a truly consensusbased solution on runway safety.
%204IU1'YIlUltN HOIJU Qmlll! f!lJ1Ul!N;

WIW4l~,·DC 2Oll1&-OOaO

(202) 225-$874

~OU",OCWIW.J(IfIJ~

FAA-070523-0 18

IlIS1;1<ICl' OO1'fCe:

llAall Wnr THIRD S'r1ltl!T

$tJ~ eoo

1.00AAGUll1 CA !lOO4i-41S3

• 1323.l $61.104/)

r&181878-1~O

(310)65~"

~Ol1weJJof tb£ _ntteb ji)tates

Jilous£ ofl\.qJttftntat.ibe&

.«'bitt~ont1l.c20515...o530

HENRY A. WAXMAN

aO-r/ol DI$TAlCT, CAUFOItNIA

AND GO\'E"'NMENT AEFOIlM

~eMfl£R

COMMl1"ttfiON

~NERGYANQ¢Q~-ee

May 22, 2007

MarionC. Blakey

Administrator

FederalJ\viation Administration

SOp·Irtdependence Avenue, SW

Washiftgto~p.C. 20591..0001

Dear Administrator Blakey:

I am writing to express my concern with the FAA's failure to act coust:ructNely on the

serious need for ~afetYupgrades at Santa Mdnica Airport

Santa M<lIlica Airport (SM0)i$one()ftb~ most h,ea:vily used single runway airports in

the. United Sta~es. Its~quelaYoulpreSent8 si~ficantsatetYTi.sks loa~Qrtusers .and the

surrCll.mdin~communhy. Approxbnately 75%oftheairport is surrounded hyresidence$, with

some homes located as close as 250.feet from the runway. Both ends oftbe runway ate lined

with houses, buffered only by abrupt hill slopes and public .streets. The 5,OOO~footrunway was

'builtd.ecades ago \Villi no runway safety areas (R$As) and the safety risks have been

CO.l'.I):poundedby the changing fleet mix and increased frequency at the airport by larger business

Jets.

Since 2000, r have contacted the FAA on numerous occasions to convey the urgent need

for the FAAtQ work with the City of StmtaMonica, whioh opetatesSMO, to address the need

fo.r thei installation of RSAs at both ends oftbe a.ir,port.l)espiteongoing disoussions between the

FAA personnel and City staffftom 2003 to 2006, it appears that the FAA remains unwilling to

engage ina full·f~tb effort to address runway saretyinadequaciesat SMO.

Most recently, during a M~clt~6. 2007 meetinfl of the Santa Monica Airport

Commission, an FAA-representative delivered astat~1llent apruptlytetreatingfrom an RSA

concept plan developed by the FAA and the City. The statement conveyed the FAA's

preliminary conclusion that a 16.5..foot Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) bed

rather than the 2S0-foot EMAS bed discussed in the concept plan would he appropriate for the

more heavily used west end of the runway. The preliminary decisiQn also abandoned the original

concept plan'S proposal for a 600"foot RSA on the east end ofthe runway in favor of an

unspecified shorter RSA. This drastic unilateral change shatply undercut previous discussions

on the issue and tQok place without any opporttiIlity for public comment or for review and input

,from. the City.

81:3/20' d
**

80'39ldd 18101** FAA-070523-0 18

May 22, 2007

Page 2

The FAA has conveyed that it reached this preliminary conclusion on the basis of

comm.ents fromairo.raft operators during a December 12,2006 meeting held at their Western

PllcificRegional :Headquarters. While some comments from aviation 'UseTSindicated that

adoption orthe original concept plan could restrict Some aircraft from operating at SMO, I

understand the majority recognized that.mcst.aircraft would still be able to continue operating

albeit at reduced weights and shorter operating. distances.

The FANs move to alter the concept proposal before other stakeholders were given the

opportunity to comment has created a troubling perception that the .FAAis favoring access and

convenience :f'oraviation users at the expense of safety.

It isnlY lJ.f1derstanding thatthe new FM propo$alwould drastiC£l1lYreduce the

.,tfectiveness of the RSAsas compared. tethe original COncept plan presented to thealrportusers.

Insteadofa 250",footEMAS bed capable ofstoppingJl Qulfstream IV exiting the runway at 70

l<nots?the FAA' sproposed design would only stop thesanlC aircraft exitiu!J the. runway at 40 to

45 knots ... A.dditionalIYtitappearsthatthellew u,substitute1'proposal does not meetth~FAA's

desJ$I1~idelines fortheilirport.SMO' S Airport Reference Code ofB"Il requires a xnini.mUXllof

300'ofsafetyfU'eaatboth ends. ofthe tu:nway.

SMO is frequented by over 9,000 Ca.tegpry C and D aircraft operations per year.P AA

desigllguid.,lines specify a 1,OOO~footrunwaysafety area. for these types ofaireraft operations.

While many in tbecommunity have questions about Whether the original RSA concept plan

would be sufficient to a<idresssafety risks in the event of an accident involVing a Cor D aircraft,

the FAA'sp;reli,r,tiinary conclusion appears to be entirely inadequate. These concerns arC

heightened by the;fact that the new proposal. fails to specificallY addres~ remedia.tion for the east

~rtd of thert'!.J:1\Yi;lY. which isrnore commonly used in the event of poor visibility or <Uffieult

weatherconditiOl1s.

The FAA muSt stop draggIng its feet Thei.nttod\.lction of adequate and~quivalent RSA

enhancements ~tboth ends of the tunW4y that addtess the safety requireUJentsoftljeair(:raft

U$ingtheairport absolutely essential ~d long overdue. lcall.on the FAA to abandon its

prelimina:Qi'j and enga.ge in a good~faith process thatin¢ludes input on the original

concept plan rron} allstakehold~t's in both the aviation and non~~lVia.tionp.ublic. Retreating to a

lesssafeJ.l.SA solution makes no sense at all. Most imponantly, I urge the FAA to undertake a

deoision ..makingprocess that putS safety first.

Sincerely,

Lt:'@SL926 01 29t:'tS22202
FAA-070523-0 18

2204AAvaUFWHoVSE

OF'FJcEBUlt.OING

WASHINGTON,fl.,C.

2Q515·05~m

202.22.5.,3978

V<t.WW.wAXMAN.HGYSl~·G0'i.

SUITE 600

Los ANGELES, CA

90048-4163

323.651.1040

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED

STATES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATives

HENRV A..WAXMAN

3Q"IliI)J$TRICl' OF CAUFO~NIA

FACSIMILE TfiANSMISSION

IF THIS FAX IS INCOMPLETE,. PLEASe CALt.202/225-3976

To: .Admini$trator Manon Blakey

Fax.: (202)2Ei'{-5047

From: Representallve Henry·A. Waxman

Date: May 22, 2007

Comments:

PElges (Incl. eover): 3

CHAIRMAN

CoMMrrres ON

OVERSIGHT AND

GOVEf\NMENT Rer:ORM

MEMBER

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY

AND COMMERCE

80/10'd Lv0SL926 01 29vIS22202 Nl::JWXeP1AClN3H NOH Cl.::lst~91 LB02 22
U.S.Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

Office of the Airport Safety

and Standards

800 Independence Ave., Sw.

Washington, DC 20591

APR 1 1 2007

Mr. Mark Young, Chairman

Airport Commission

City of Santa Monica

1685 Main Street

Santa Monica, CA 90401

Dear Mr. Young:

I appreciate your providing an opportunity for Brian Armstrong, Manager of the Federal

Aviation Administration Los Angeles Airports District Office, to make a presentation at

the Airport Commission meeting on March 26. I understand that the Commission will

take up the issue of runway safety enhancements at Santa Monica Airport at the

Commission's next meeting on April 23, and I would like to offer some comments for the

commissioners' consideration before that meeting.

From the press reports on the March 26 meeting, it appears some members of the

community believe that the FAA stepped back from a process of working with the City to

enhance runway end safety at the airport. That was certainly not our intent, and we look

forward to meeting with City representatives to discuss comments received from both

airport users and from community members.

I would note that the ideas discussed by Mr. Armstrong on March 26 differed from the

proposal presented by the City only in dimensions, not in the measures proposed. The

proposal presented to airport users on December 12 and to the Commission on March 26

involved an engineered material arresting system (EMAS) on the departure end of

Runway 21, and use of declared distances for Runway 3. Mr. Armstrong's statement

proposed those same measures, but with smaller dimensions similar to EMAS beds

installed on commercial runways at Burbank Airport, Midway Airport in Chicago, and

other locations.

Of more concern to us is that some of the comments quoted in the press tended to portray

the FAA as concerned primarily about access to the airport rather than safety. First, we

assume the City is also concerned about reasonable access to the airport, given the City's

legal obligations to provide reasonable access under Federal grant agreements, surplus

property deed provisions, and the 1984 Settlement Agreement. However, it is most

important to understand that the issue is not simply safety versus access; the sacrifice of

existing runway to provide runway safety area itself has safety implications that need to

be considered. The use of runway pavement to provide a larger EMAS bed would reduce

the available runway for all operations on Runway 3. The touchdown point for

Runway 3 landings and the beginning of the takeoff roll for Runway 3 takeoffs would

both be closer to the end of Runway 3 than at present. These facts need to be considered

in determining the optimum safety benefit of any proposed safety enhancement at the

airport.
Finally, we believe that the benefits of any physical enhancements to the runway ends

could be increased through additional pilot education and awareness. We would like to

discuss a program for awareness and other voluntary measures that we believe could

make a significant contribution to safe operations at the airport.

We appreciate the cooperation ofMr. Robert Trimbom and other City officials in the

analysis of potential measures to enhance safety at the airport, and look forward to our

next meeting.

Sincerely,

David L. Bennett

Director, Airport Safety

and Standards

cc: Robert Trimbom

2
J r-07-07 04:09pm From-SANTA MONICA AIRPORT

i) til

~

310-572-4495 T-114 P.02/03 F-135

Santa Monica Airport

Office of the Airport DirQCtor

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South

santa Monica, Califomia 90405

City of

Santi' donie ••'"

March 7, 2007

David L. Bennett

Director, Airport Safety and Standards. MS-1

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

Re: March 26, 2007 Airport Commission Meeting

Dear Mr. Bennett,

On behalf of the City of Santa Monica, Iwould like to formally invite you and your staff

to attend the March 26. 2007 Santa Monica Airport Commission meeting to assist in

briefing the Airport Commission on the concepts for runway safety enhancements. As

we discussed in an earlier email, City staff will brief the Airport Commission in a

workshop format to allow for a free-flow of a & A. We are planning to give the Airport

Commission a technical presentation similar to the presentation made at the FAA's

meeting of December 12, 2006. I will lead off the discussion with a brief historical

overview leading up to the current RSA concept, Steve Benson with Coffman

Associates will present a technical/ operational overview of the concept followed by a

representative from ESCO (hopefully Kevin won't have his flight delayed again).

While I understand that you want to discuss the comments received from the Airport

users tomorrow, we believe that it is important to have the public comment on the same

ACP concept that aviation users based their responses on when proViding operational

data. I am very reluctant to discuss changing the current runway safety area concept

prior to receiving comments from the Airport Commission and the general public. At the

request of the City Manager, I presented an historical over view leading up to the

current runway safety enhancements to the City Council last Tuesday. As part of the

presentation, I briefed them on the current runway safety area concept. At the end of

the presentation, the Council directed staff to give a technical presentation of the

concept to the Airport Commission for further review and comment by both the public

and the Commission. To change the RSA concept before we have had a chance to brief

the Airport Commission would send a message to the community that the users had

more input into the process then the residents surrounding the Airport.

tel: 310458-8591 1

Fax froflt 31B 572 4495 B3/B7/B7 18:53 Pg: 2
M?r-07-07 04:09pm From-SANTA MONICA AIRPORT 310-572-4495 T-114 P.03/03 F-135

It doesn't surprise me that a majority of the comments from the SMO users were

negative - some bordering on vitriolic. My quick review of the comments indicated that

most users elected to provide an editorial comment on the RSA concept and not provide

the technical data we requested. Even thouph we made it abundantly clear during the

Dec 12th meeting that the RSA proposal was a joint FANCity concept, virtually all

respondents felt it was strictly a City proposal that should be rejected by the FAA. We

need to look beyond the rhetoric and examine the technical data submitted to determine

what real impact the proposal would have on the users.

Since the Airport Commission meeting is on a Monday night, maybe we could meet at

the Airport the following Tuesday to review and discuss the public comments made

durinq the meeting and the comments received from the SMO users.

Please let me know if you or one of your staff can attend the Airport Commission

meeting.

Sincerely

~=

~rin1born .----

Airport Director

cc: Martin Tachiki

2

Fax frolll 318 572 4495

83/87/87 18:53 Pg: 3
U.S.Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

Office of Airport Safety

and Standards

800 Independence Ave .. SW.

Washington, DC 20591

DEC 1 2006

To whom it may concern:

The Federal Aviation Administration is working with the City of Santa Monica in order

to improve the runway safety areas (RSA) at the Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO).

The City of Santa Monica has recently developed a proposal to enhance the Airport's

RSAs, and the FAA will be considering the City's proposal in the near future. As part of

the review and consideration process, the FAA is seeking comments from airport users.

To this end, the FAA will hold a meeting on December 12, 2006, at its Regional Office in

Lawndale, California.

We would like to invite you, as a party interested in operations at SMa, to attend and

participate in the discussion. The meeting location and contact information is as follows:

Address: Federal Aviation Administration

Western-Pacific Regional Office

15000 Aviation Blvd.

Lawndale, CA 90261

Location:

Time:

Contact:

Triangle Room, 1st Floor

I :00-5:00 pm

Lyn Brekke, (310) 725-3550

Please allow some extra time to process through building security. You can identify your

meeting as the Santa Monica airport users briefing.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

David L. Bennett

Director, Airports Safety

and Standards
Santa Monica Airport

Office of the Airport Director

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South

Santa Monica, California 90405

City of

Santa Monica'"

Septem ber 7, 2006

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL

David L. Bennett

Director, Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-1

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

Re: Safety Improvements at Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO)

Dear Mr. Bennett,

This is in response to your August 11, 2006 letter to Arthur Berg regarding safety improvements at Santa

Monica Airport. We are most anxious to progress towards a consensus of appropriate runway safety

improvements that will enhance the overall safe operation of the Airport. Although your letter reflects to

some degree a misunderstanding of our RSA proposal, I agree that it makes more sense to meet in

person at FAA headquarters in Washington rather than engaging in a further exchange of letters.

Accordingly, I would propose a pre-meeting between FAA and SMO, immediately followed by a meeting

with representatives of ESCO and aircraft manufacturers, such as Cessna, Bombardier, Gulfstream,

Raytheon/Beechcraft and DassaultiFalcon.

Prior to our meeting with the aircraft manufacturer representatives, it would be helpful if they completed a

cursory analysis of their aircraft performance characteristics for an airport like Santa Monica Airport and

have such data available for discussion during our meeting. To facilitate the data collection, and to

standardize the data reporting, I have taken the liberty of attaching a suggested sample Aircraft

Manufacturers Runway Length Survey that could be distributed to the various companies. The meeting

with the aircraft manufacturers would provide them with a greater understanding of our safety concerns

and the meeting, together with the information gleaned from the survey, would be helpful in determining

the extent of operational impacts of various RSA alternatives.

We welcome this opportunity to further meet in the near future to fully review and discuss proposed RSA

enhancements at Santa Monica Airport. We have asked Arthur Berg and Tom Devine of Kaplan, Kirsch

and Rockwell to contact your office regarding the issues to be covered at the meeting and to facilitate the

meeting dates and times.

Sincerely,

~~_=c: _

~i~:~or~

cc: Martin Tachiki

Arthur Berg

Tom Devine

Attachment

tel: 310458-8591 1
U.S.Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

Office of Airport Safely

and Standards

800 Independence Ave., SW.

Washington, DC 20591

AUG 11 2006

Mr. Arthur P. Berg

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP

730 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900

New York, NY 10019

Re: Safety Improvements at Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO)

Dear Mr. Berg:

Thank you for your letter of June 13 on behalf of the City of Santa Monica concerning

runway safety area (RSA) enhancements at SMa.

As we have pointed out in previous correspondence, the Federal Aviation Administration

is very interested in enhancing certain runway safety issues at the SMa, but any solution

must take into account the safety impacts on all aircraft using the airport, and consider the

effect of any enhancements on the basic utility of the airport.

In response to the City's initial proposal to shorten the runway and limit operations to

category B-II aircraft, the FAA and the city, in letters and meetings, have exchanged

several ideas for the improvement ofthe airport's RSAs. Most recently, on May 12, 2006,

the FAA wrote to the City and provided additional details regarding the FAA's position on

the City's proposal. The FAA proposed an Engineered Materials Arresting System

(EMAS), 165' x 200' wide, that would provide protection for all aircraft using SMa

exiting the runway up to 40 knots, meeting the FAA's criteria for installation. The EMAS

installation alone would provide protection in cases of runway overruns at the end of

runway 21 and would be effective with larger aircraft operating at SMa, from the

17,000-pound Learjet 35 to the 73,000-pound Gulfstream G-IV. Because 95-98% of

operations are on Runway 21, the 165' EMAS at the end of Runway 21 would provide the

highest safety benefit relative to the sacrifice of usable runway pavement.

Runway safety enhancement for Runway 3 could be achieved through the use of declared

distances. An EMAS installation for the Runway 3 departure end is not practicable for

several reasons. First, only 2-5% ofthe airport's operations use runway 3. Second, while

those operations generally occur in poor weather conditions, the Los Angeles climate does

not produce the kinds of runway contamination, e.g. snow and ice, that significantly

increase the runway length required. Finally, an EMAS installation for Runway 3 would

require use of several hundred feet of existing runway, which would have the effect of

actually reducing the existing safety margin for almost all operations using Runway 21, by

moving the touchdown point further down the runway.
2

The FAA's suggestions provide a significant safety enhancement for operations of aircraft

exceeding 17,000 pounds, and minimize the loss of actual pavement to avoid any

compromise in the existing level of safety for all other aircraft operating at the airport.

In its June 13,2006 letter, the City instead proposed a larger EMAS installation at each

end of the runway. The City proposal would result in the loss of 600 feet at each end, for

a total loss of 1,200 feet, reducing SMa's runway length to approximately 3,800 feet.

This would not, as the City states, have a "minor impact on airport users." A 1,200-foot

reduction would preclude more than 18,000 ofthe airport's current annual operations and

would reduce available pavement to such an extent that safety for other users of the airport

would be degraded, not enhanced. Ironically, reducing the runway length by 1,200' for

EMAS installations would effectively eliminate operations by most of the aircraft that

could benefit from the EMAS. The City's June 13 proposal, therefore, cannot be justified

on grounds of safety or practical benefits.

The June 13 letter refers to FAA standards in support ofthe City proposal, but

misunderstands what those standards provide. Even at commercial airports, the FAA does

not require that existing runways be shortened to accommodate an RSA, when the normal

use of the runway would be adversely affected. The language in Advisory Circular

150/5300-13, Change 7, simply means that modifications to standards are not issued for

runway safety areas because non-standard RSAs are evaluated through the separate

process. That process is a determination of practicability, as provided in AC 150/5300-13

and FAA Orders 5200-8 and 5200-9. The FAA strongly supports the availability of

standard RSAs at general aviation airports like Santa Monica as well as commercial

airports subject to 14 C.F.R. Part 139. However, in each case the practicability of meeting

the standard must be considered in determining how an RSA can be improved.

At this point, even without a consensus on a particular RSA configuration, I think we would

benefit more from conversations with the EMAS manufacturer, ESCO, and with airport

users than from a further exchange of letters on proposed configurations. I would like to

schedule separate meetings in Washington, DC with ESCO, aircraft manufacturers and

subsequently with user organizations. A meeting in Santa Monica with airport users and

other interested local parties would follow. If you agree, please let us know your general

availability. You can call me at 202-267-3053, or Rick Marinelli at: 202267-7669.

Sincerely,

David L. Bennett

Director, Airport Safety

and Standards
U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

AdmInistratIon

Office of Airport Safety

and Standards

BOO Independence Ave., SW.

Washington, DC 20591

AUG 1 2006

Mr. Arthur P. Berg

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP

730 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900

New York, NY 10019

Re: Safety Improvements at Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO)

Dear Mr. Berg:

Thank you for your letter of June 13 on behalf of the City of Santa Monica concerning

runway safety area (RSA) enhancements at SMO.

As we have pointed out in previous correspondence, the Federal Aviation Administration

is very interested in enhancing certain runway safety issues at the SMO, but any solution

must take into account the safety impacts on all aircraft using the airport, and consider the

effect of any enhancements on the basic utility of the airport.

In response to the City's initial proposal to shorten the runway and limit operations to

category B-II aircraft, the FAA and the city, in letters and meetings, have exchanged

several ideas for the improvement of the airport's RSAs. Most recently, on May 12, 2006,

the FAA wrote to the City and provided additional details regarding the FAA's position on

the City's proposal. The FAA proposed an Engineered Materials Arresting System

(EMAS), 165' x 200' wide, that would provide protection for all aircraft using SMO

exiting the runway up to 40 knots, meeting the FAA's criteria for installation. The EMAS

installation alone would provide protection in cases of runway overruns at the end of

runway 21 and would be effective with larger aircraft operating at SMO, from the

17,000-pound Learjet 35 to the 73,000-pound Gulfstream G-N. Because 95-98% of

operations are on Runway 21, the 165' EMAS at the end of Runway 21 would provide the

highest safety benefit relative to the sacrifice of usable runway pavement.

Runway safety enhancement for Runway 3 could be achieved through the use of declared

distances. An EMAS installation for the Runway 3 departure end is not practicable for

several reasons. First, only 2-5% of the airport's operations use runway 3. Second, while

those operations generally occur in poor weather conditions, the Los Angeles climate does

not produce the kinds of runway contamination, e.g. snow and ice, that significantly

increase the runway length required. Finally, an EMAS installation for Runway 3 would

require use of several hundred feet of existing runway, which would have the effect of

actually reducing the existing safety margin for almost all operations using Runway 21, by

moving the touchdown point further down the runway.
The FAA' s suggestions provide a significant safety enhancement for operations of aircraft

exceeding 17.000 pounds. and minimize the loss of actual pavement to avoid any

compromise in the existing level of safety for all other aircraft operating at the airport.

In its June 13, 2006 letter. the City instead proposed a larger EMAS installation at each

end of the runway. The City proposal would result in the loss of600 feet at each end. for

a total loss of 1,200 feet. reducing SMO's runway length to approximately 3,800 feet.

This would not, as the City states. have a ''minor impact on airport users." A 1,200-foot

reduction would preclude more than 18,000 of the airport's current annual operations and

would reduce available pavement to such an extent that safety for other users of the airport

would be degraded, not enhanced. Ironically, reducing the runway length by 1,200' for

EMAS installations would effectively eliminate operations by most of the aircraft that

could benefit from the EMAS. The City's June 13 proposal. therefore, cannot be justified

on grounds of safety or practical benefits.

The June 13 letter refers to FAA standards in support of the City proposal. but

misunderstands what those standards provide. Even at commercial airports, the FAA does

not require that existing runways be shortened to accommodate an RSA, when the normal

use of the runway would be adversely affected. The language in Advisory Circular

150/5300-13, Change 7. simply means that modifications to standards are not issued for

runway safety areas because non-standard RSAs are evaluated through the separate

process. That process is a determination of practicability, as provided in AC 150/5300-13

and FAA Orders 5200-8 and 5200-9. The FAA strongly supports the availability of

standard RSAs at general aviation airports like Santa Monica as well as commercial

airports subject to 14 C.F.R. Part 139. However, in each case the practicability of meeting

the standard must be considered in determining how an RSA can be improved.

At this point, even without a consensus on a particular RSA configuration, I think we would

benefit more from conversations with the EMAS manufacturer, ESCO, and with airport

users than from a further exchange of letters on proposed configurations. I would like to

schedule separate meetings in Washington, DC with ESCO. aircraft manufacturers and

subsequently with user organizations. A meeting in Santa Monica with airport users and

other interested local parties would follow. If you agree. please let us know your general

availability. You can call me at 202-267-3053, or Rick Marinelli at: 202267-7669.

Sincerely,

David L. Bennett

Director, Airport Safety

and Standards
Ifll

KAPLAN KIRSCH ROCKWELL

June 13,2006

VIA FACSIMILEAND U.S. MAIl.

Mr. David L. Bennett

Director, Airport Safety & Standards

Federal Aviation Administration.

800 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, DC 20591

Re: Safety Improvements at Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO)

Dear Dave:

Thank you for your recent letter to Bob Trimbom, Airport Manager, concerning improving

safety at SMO by the creation of runway safety areas (RSAs). We are looking forward to

continuing to work cooperatively with the FAA to resolve this critical safety problem and we

welcome your invitation to make clear the City's views.

First, it is of utmost importance, for the safety of aircraft users, U5eI'5of adjacent roads and

nearby residents, that RSAs are created for both Runway 21 and Runway 3. Rick Marinelli, of

your staff, in a telephone conversation with me following our meeting, acknowledged that the

FAA realized that it was not feasible to provide safety improvements for one runway without

also providing safety improvements for the other runway. Furthermore, although it is true that

most operations are 00 Runway 21, accidents by their nature are unpredictable, and therefore, it

would be imprudent not to enhance the: safety of both Runway 21 and Runway 3.

Second, the goal of Santa Monica bas always been to bring itself into 100% compliance; with the

FAA's runway safety area standards. Particularly in view of the topography of SMO, built on a

mesa with sharp drop offs at tbe ends of each runway, followed by a busy two lane road and

residential housing, nothing less is acceptable. FAA's EMAS proposal, which your letter states

would only protect against 50% of reported runway overruns, does not meet FAA established

standards. Therefore, we must continue to work together to find an alternative solution that does

comply with those standards.

We wish to emphasize that we are not proposing our own standards but are simply proposing to

comply with established FAA RSA safety standards. Significantly, the FAA has concluded that

full compliance with these standards is so critical to safety that no variance can be granted. (AC

Attorneys at t:..•..

Otnv('r • New York • W2shington, 1)(;

KaplllIl Kirsch &. ROtlcwcll LI.r

730 flifth Avenue, Suit\! 900

New York. NY 10019

lei; (2IZ) 265-7008

fax: (646) ~14·S440

wwwkaplftflki~ch.com
Mr. David L. Bennett

June u, 2006

Page: 2

150/5300-13 CHG 7, SecJ05 c.) Additionally, as stated by the FAA, "aircraft can and do

overrun the: ends of runways, sometimes with devastating results." (AC 150/5220-22A, Sec. 3)

This statement is particularly applicable to SMO. In the absence: of adequate RSAs, due to its

unique characteristics, the probability of an aircraft overrun at SMO having "devastating results"

is very high.

We have had preliminary discussions with the EMAS manufacturer, which has proposed some

alternatives that will comply with the FAA standard of stopping all aircraft overrunning the

runway at 70 knots or less, which accounts for 90% of aircraft overruns. These alternatives

should be explored with aircraft manufacturers to identify the effect they would have on aircraft

currently using the airport. At our meeting, and also in a subsequent conversation with Rick

Marinelli, it was agreed that the contacts with manufacturers would be handled jointly by the

FAA and SMO. We also appreciate the FAA's agreement to include SMO in meetings with and

infonnation collection from airport users. In order to have a solid empirical data base, we:believe

that the contacts with tbe manufacturers should precede any meetings and information collection

from airport users.

It is important to proceed expeditiously in implementing adequate runway safety areas at SMO.

Consequently, we will be calling you shortly to coordinate contacting aircraft manufacturers and

consulting with airport users. We believe that the final results win show that 1000/11compliance

with FAA RSA standards can be achieved with a relatively minor impact on airport users.

cc: Jeff Mathieu: Marty Tachiki; Bob Trimbom; Tom Devine
U.S. Deportment

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

Office of Airport Safety

and Standards

800 Independence Ave .. SW.

Washington. DC 20591

MAY 1 2 ~J06

Mr. Robert D. Trimborn

Airport Manager

Santa Monica Airport

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South, Suite 3

Santa Monica, CA 90405

Dear Mr. Trimborn:

Thank you for meeting with us about proposed safety improvements at Santa Monica

Municipal Airport (SMO). This is to respond to concerns expressed at that meeting, and

to note understandings reached between SMO and the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA). Please let me know if your view of any of these understandings differs.

Airport neighbors are concerned that the FAA is promoting safety improvements only for

one end of the runway. You expressed that while the vast majority of operations are on

Runway 21, Runway 3 is in use during periods of inclement weather. We note that those

periods of inclement weather are almost always foggy days, not rainy days when braking

action would be affected. We agree that it is appropriate to consider safety improvements

for both directions, but continue to believe that efforts should be skewed toward

improving safety in the most used direction.

Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS) would provide protection for all

aircraft using SMO exiting the end of the runway at 40 knots or less, meeting FAA's

criterion for installation. Limited data suggest an effectiveness of approximately 50%.

However, we believe that many low-speed overruns are not reported, and that the actual

effectiveness would be much higher.

Also discussed, was the possibility of combining EMAS with «declared distances". This

would require pilots to base runway length calculations on a theoretically shortened

runway, but would not physically shorten the runway any more than actually required for

the EMAS installation. Some increase in effectiveness of the EMAS would result,

however input from the EMAS manufacturer and airport users will be necessary to

evaluate that benefit versus effects on runway utility.

We do not believe it would be prudent to displace runway thresholds at SMa. While we

do not intend to minimize the effects of runway undershoots, we must consider the

overall safety of all landings and takeoffs. A seeming improvement can actually decrease

overall safety, and we believe displacing runway thresholds at SMO would have that

effect.
2

A shortened runway would prevent the use of certain aircraft, but for the rest would

simply remove usable pavement. Few pilots would see that as a safety improvement.

We believe the increase in protection to pilots landing short would result in a greater

decrease in protection against overruns.

We have agreed to include SMO in any meetings with or information collection' from

airport users. We believe input from these users will be essential in determining the most

appropriate safety improvements at SMO.

Sincerely,

David L. Bennett

Director, Airport Safety

and Standards
U.S.Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

Office of Associate Administrator

for Airports

800 Independence Ave., SW.

Washington, DC 20591

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Feinstein:

Thank you for your letter of February 16 to Mr. David Balloff on behalf ofMr. Stephen

Mark about runway safety at Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO). Specifically,

Mr. Mark refers to an article in the Los Angeles Times dated January 15 criticizing the

Federal Aviation Administration for not addressing runway safety at SMO.

We do not agree with Mr. Mark's characterization of the FAA's position on this matter.

The FAA is very interested in enhancing runway safety at federally obligated airports, and

the Agency has an ongoing program of providing Federal grant funding specifically for

the improvement of runway safety areas.

The FAA and the city of Santa Monica are evaluating alternatives that we believe can

provide a positive enhancement to runway safety at SMO. FAA and city officials met

most recently on February 16 to outline the next steps in developing a runway safety

enhancement program at SMO.

1trust this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Original signed by:

Catherine M. Lang

Catherine M. Lang

Acting Associate Administrator

for Airports

Enclosure

Transmitted Correspondence

CntJ# 2006047 5-0/F AA -060307 -007

WP: G:/AAS-400NasconceJos/Final Airport Issues!20060475-0 Feinstein SMO.doc

AA S-400:MV asconcelos: 78730:031 14/2006:wcck:031 16/2006

AA S-4001 11ARP 1AGI! AWP -600N asconce1os

Statistics: 20060475-0 Feinstein SMO.doc. 182 words

Original, 14 Mar 200613:08

Style Index 32 Average for a Letter

Average Sentence Length 18 Excellent

Passive Index 0 Excellent
:·eb. J. '2006 :0; 16AM No. 0455 p, 2

.EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER&DODGE LLP

750 Lexington Avenue NC'N York, N'):' 10022 212308.4411 fax 212.308.4844 eapdlaw.corn

Arthur P. Berg

212.912.2781 direct dial

212.308.4844 fax

abcrg@eapdJaw.com

February 2, 2006

VIA FAX AJ.~DFIRST CI"ASS MAIL

Mr. David L. Bennett

Director, Airport Safety and Standards

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

Re: Compliance by Santa Monica with FAA RSA Standards

Dear Dave:

We appreciate the time you spent the other day discussing FAA's January 20, 2006 letter

containing two FAA proposals to meet the need to create runway safety areas ("RSAs'') at the

Santa Monica Municipal Airport (the "Airport"), The City of Santa Monica (the "City") views

as very positive developments both the January 20 letter and your suggestion that we meet soon

to discuss the City's questions concerning the proposals and to work together to resolve our

concerns.

We would like to meet with you as soon as possible, and we will call your office shortly

with dates when the City's representatives would be available. In the meantime, in order to

ensure that the meeting is as productive as possible, we thought it would be a good idea to

provide you with the City's initial questions and concerns, so that you and your staff can analyze

them now and address them before, or at least at, the meeting.

Impact of Placement of the Elt:fAS Bed at One End of the Runway in Conjunction with a

Declared Distance of 4,687 Feet

'While it is true, as stated in your letter, that a vast majority of the Airport's operations

occur on Runway 21, we have concerns as to the impact ofFM's proposals on operations that

occur in the other direction, i.e., on OR unway 3. As you know, the City has no control over the

direction in which operations occur. "hat is primarily an FAA air traffic determination, and, at

night, when the Tower is unmanned, a )ilot determination.

Of particular concern is that oJ erations are typically switched to an eastbound orientation

during inclement weather - precipita tion, difficult winds, etc. - when the margins of safety

should be increased, not decreased. :n light of these factors, how does FAA intend to handle

NYC_227300_2IMBATISTA

BOsrON IFT. l.AUDERDALE. IHARTFORD INEW YORK IPRO flDENCE ISHORT anis ISTAMFORD IWEST PAL"! B.EAOi Iwn.MlNGTON ILONDON
Feb. 3. 2006 10: 17AN1 No, 0455 P. 3

EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER&DODGE L.L.P

eastbound operations? On a shorter runway (due to the installation of EMAS), with no safety

margin at the take-off end (where FAA has stated that RSAs are critical), typically during

adverse weather conditions, would larger and/or faster aircraft be prohibited from using the

Airport for eastbound operations under FAA's proposal?

Safety Benefits of the FAA ElvJASIDeclared Distance Proposal

The City believes that assessing the adequacy of the FAA's EMAS proposal requires an

understanding of its safety benefits and its effect on current operations at the Airport. It would

be very helpful to have a summary of the safety benefits that the proposed 165-foot bed of

E11AS, together with a declared distance of 4,687 feet, would provide to the various aircraft that

FAA expects to be able to use the A'rport, For instance, would there be full RSA equivalency

for certain categories of aircraft, but less than full RSA equivalency for others? What is the

likelihood that there would be adequate protection to prevent a large and/or fast aircraft from

going beyond the proposed RSA and EMAS bed? If such an aircraft did pass through the EMAS

bed, how far would it likely travel? The FAA letter and attachment indicate that the 16S-foot

ElvIAS bed will stop an aircraft going 40 knots or less, rather than 70 knots or less (as would a

standard EMAS bed). We understand that this is consistent with FAA guidance on EMAS, when

a full EMAS bed cannot be installed, but it would be helpful to understand the significance of the

difference, and how the 40-knot stopping power would provide an adequate level of safety.

Also, under FAA's proposal, how would FAA prohibit or restrict operations by aircraft for which

the EMAS stopping power was not sufficient?

Declared distances for ASDA and LDA of 4,687feet

With regard to FAA's second alternative of a declared runway length of 4,687 feet, the

City has much the same concerns as it has for the FAA's EMAS Plus Declared Distance

proposal. Specifically, to what degree will it enhance safety, what effect will it have on current

operations at the Airport, and how would the FAA restrict or prohibit operations of aircraft that

would not have adequate RSA protection?

Environmental Review

The FAA letter states that, "any FAA decision required for a change to the runway

environment at SMa would require environmental review." The City would be concerned if this

would unduly delay implementing the important runway safety improvements, However, it is

the City's understanding that such an environmental review need not entail a lengthy process;

rather it could consist of an environmental assessment that would not seriously delay the project.

If, as expected, there were no significant environmental impacts from installation of the EMAS

bed and/or use of declared distances and the operational limitations that would necessarily be

imposed by FAA to ensure adequate: margins of safety, a Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSl) could be issued. It would be helpful if you could provide FAA's estimate of the type of

work and the time involved in completing the environmental processing of the project.

·2·
ie b. 3, 2006 iO: 17AM No.0455 P. 4

EDWARDS ANGELL PAlMER&DODGE LLP

Siting of the EMAS Bed

Based on our discussion, the City will review the airport layout, the topography, and the

location of the perimeter road near the west end of the runway, and suggest the appropriate siting

for a possible 165-ft. EMAS bed.

Consultation with Airport Users

The City appreciates the fact ~hat the FAA understands that the City should be a party to

any discussions the FAA undertakes with airport users concerning the impact of the different

proposals on their operations. In this regard, it is important to bear in mind the guidance

contained in FAA's Runway Safety Area Program Order, which, after stating that use of declared

distances "requires a thorough understanding of user needs and views, since their cooperation is

an integral factor in selecting this alternative," goes on to emphasize that, "the airport, in

conjunction with FAA, will determine the finai disposition of this type of situation." Order

5200.8 Appendix 2, p, 3. (emphasis added.) Thus, it is clear that aircraft operators who may

disagree with a proposed RSA modification involving declared distances do not have a veto over

such determination.

Conclusion

The City is pleased that FAA shares the City's concern that the RSA issue must be

addressed and resolved in a timely manner and that safety must be enhanced at the airport for the

benefit of airport users and the surrounding community. We look forward to meeting with you

in the near future to move forward in devising an acceptable resolution of the important safety

concerns regarding operations at the Airport.

Very truly yours,

APB:mrb

~!~

·3 .
U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

Office of Airport Safety

and Standards

800 Independence Ave SW

Washington, DC 20591" .

clAN 20 2006

Mr. Robert Trimborn

Airport Manager, Santa Monica Airport

Office of the Airport Manager

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South

Santa Monica, CA 90405

Dear Mr. Trimborn:

We have considered the proposal and supporting information in your letter of September 8, 2004.

As noted in our earlier letters, we are very interested in safety enhancements to the runway

environment at Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO). At the same time, we recognize the

importance of SMO to aviation in the Southern California region, and we are interested in

preserving the utility of this airport and its availability to all classes of operator that can safely

use the airport.

The reconfiguration of the runway proposed in your letter would provide a 300-foot runway

safety area at each end of the runway through a combination of displaced thresholds and

declared distances. On takeoff, the full runway length would be available for calculating

takeoff distance and takeoff run available (TORA), but the declared distance for acceleratestop distance available (ASDA) would be 4,687 feet, a reduction of300 feet from current

conditions.

For landing aircraft, the combination of a 300-foot displaced threshold would reduce

pavement available by 300 feet. The declared landing distance available (LDA) would be

4387 feet, or 600 feet less than at present. The displaced threshold has no benefit for

overruns, but serves as protection for aircraft that land short of the runway pavement.

Statistically, undershoot incidents at airports are significantly less common than overruns.

A review of National Transportation Safety Board accident records indicates that SMO

follows the standard pattern. One short landing accident has occurred at SMO since 1982, a

nonfatal accident in 1992.

The existing runway safety area at SMO presently extends only a short distance beyond each

end of the runway. While the approved airport layout plan lists the airport reference code as

B-II, the design aircraft, based on the current usage of the airport, is D-II. To meet the FAA

standard for a runway serving that aircraft, the RSA would have to extend 1000 feet beyond

each end of the runway. It is clear from the outset that a standard RSA for D-II aircraft is

not possible without major construction off the ends of the runways, involving substantial

grading, relocation of public roads, and the taking of residential property. To meet that

standard without affecting areas off the ends of the runway would be impractical, as it would

require shortening the runway to the point of virtually eliminating its utility.
2

When it is not possible to provide a standard RSA, it makes sense to design a nonstandard

RSA in a manner that will provide the highest net safety enhancement that is consistent with

the basic functionality of the runway. As mentioned above, undershoots are experienced

much less frequently than overruns. Also, airport operations data for SMO indicate that

95% to 98% of operations are on runway 21. It is clear that the highest safety benefit would

be achieved from a measure that addresses overruns on runway 21, which could result either

from landings or from rejected takeoffs on that runway. It is also generally beneficial to

preserve as much actual pavement as possible for operations on runway 3-21, both to

preserve access to the airport and to provide the maximum pavement for braking aircraft.

The proposal in your letter meets these objectives for takeoffs, albeit with some effect on

access to the airport resulting from the reduced ASDA of 4,687 feet. For landings, however,

your proposal would reduce actual pavement available by 300 feet, to provide an approachend RSA for undershoot protection. The safety benefit of the proposed changes, aside from

the undershoot protection, would result from prohibiting some aircraft from taking off at a

certain weight, or at all, in order to eliminate marginal operations which appear to require

almost all usable pavement. For all other landing operations at SMO, however, the benefit

of the proposal is limited to undershoot protection, and that benefit would be offset by a loss

of 300 feet of runway length. We are concerned that a reduction in runway length of 300

feet or more would have an adverse effect on safety in any incident where there is the

potential for an overrun, regardless of the design group of the aircraft. Given the special

circumstances that exist at SMO, we believe a reduction in available pavement for landings

to obtain undershoot protection would not result in a net enhancement to safety.

We suggest two alternatives for enhancing safety for aircraft overruns at SMO.

Engineered material arresting system (EMAS) and declared distance of 4,687 feet. We

understand that there is not sufficient land at the ends of the runway for a standard EMAS

installation, which would take approximately 600 feet including both the setback from the

runway and the EMAS bed itself. You have rejected EMAS on this basis in your prior

letters. However, FAA standards provide for a non-standard EMAS installation where a

certain minimum benefit can be achieved. That benefit is considered the ability to stop the

design aircraft leaving the runway end at a speed not less than 40 knots.

We took a preliminary look at the possibility of installing EMAS at the departure end of

runway 21 only, since most operations at SMO use that runway. Our correspondence with

the Engineered Arresting Systems Company indicates that the installation of an_EMAS no

more than 165 feet in length at the end of runway 21 could provide protection for operations

at SMO where an airplane exits that runway at 40 knots or less (preliminary report attached).

EMAS installations are custom-designed for the size aircraft that use a particular airport. As

a result, the overrun protection provided by this EMAS installation would extend to a

substantial portion of the aircraft fleet using SMO, including all of the largest aircraft types

using the airport. This 40-knot stopping performance meets our criterion for practicability

of installation of EMAS. The option of installing a 165-foot EMAS would require grading

and possibly use of a small length of existing runway, but on a first look it appears feasible

from an engineering standpoint.
3

Declared distances for ASDA and IDA of 4,687 feet. Without EMAS, a smaller safety

enhancement could be obtained by the use of declared distances alone without a displaced

threshold or other physical change to the runway. This option would have less adverse

effect on airport access than the city's proposal, because it would retain all existing

pavement for use in both takeoff and landing, and would affect fewer operations.

In each of these alternatives-the city's and the two alternatives we propose in this letteroperators that use SMO would be affected to some degree. For that reason we intend to

discuss these alternatives informally with users to get better information on how they would

be affected. Also, we note that any FAA decision required for a change to the runway

environment at SMO will require environmental review.

We look forward to your comments on these proposals and to further discussions with you

on how best to enhance safety at SMO.

Sincerely, au

David L. Bennett

Director of Airport Safety

and Standards

Enclosure
U.S Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

Western-Pacific Region

Airports Division

Federal Aviation Adrninistration

PO. Box 92007

Los Angeles. CA 90009-2007

November 22, 2004

Mr. Trimborn

Airport Administration Building

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South

Santa Monica, CA 90405

Dear Mr. Trimborn:

We are in receipt of your letter and documents dated September 8, 2004

addressing the Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the runway safety area

determination and the City's current position with regards to the

reduction in runway length and the employment of declared distances. We

are currently evaluating the documentation you submitted, including

Addendum #1, and expect to respond to the City's proposal in the near

future.

However, in order to properly assess the actual impact of the City's

proposal on aircraft operations at the Santa Monica airport and the

airport's ability to meet its role as one of the most important

reliever airports in the Los Angels area, we request that the City

provide the following information:

a. Fleet mix and operational count for aircraft above 10,000 lb. for

the years 1999-2002 in addition to the information provided in

Table A3 of Addendum #1 and in Table D of the original study.

b. Number of annual 14 CFR Part 135 and Part 91 operations at the

airport.

c. Number of annual flight segments (500, 1,000, 1,500 nautical

miles) of aircraft weighing over 25,000 lb. operating into and

out of the airport.

d. Consistent with (b) and (c) above, take-off an landing

information (such as runway length) for aircraft above 25,000 lb.

in increments of 1,000 lb. at Sea Level and up to 3,000 feet

density altitude in 1,000-foot increments

e. Estimated impact of a runway reduction on trust reverser

operation by aircraft weighing more than 15,000 lb.

f. Estimated displaced aircraft operations to other nearby reliever

airports that would result from the proposed change in

accelerate-stop distance available and landing distance

available.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Mr. Rick

Marinelli at (202) 267-7669.

Sincerely,

David L. Bennett

Director, Airports Safety

And Standards
8 til

~

Santa Monica Airport

Office of the Airport Manager

3223 Donald Douglas loop South, Suite 3

Santa Monica, California 90405

City of

Santa Monica'·

September 8, 2004

David L. Bennett

Director, Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-1

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

Mr. Mark A McClardy

Manager

Airports Division AWP-600

Federal Aviation Administration

Western-Pacific Region Airports Division

P.O. Box 92007 WWPC

Los Angeles, California 90009

Subject: Airport Layout Plan and Runway Safety Area Determination

Dear Mr. Bennett,

Enclosed please find an updated Airport Layout Plan ("ALP") for the Santa Monica Municipal

Airport ("Airport"). Pursuant to 49 V.S.c. §47107(a)(l6) and Grant Assurance No. 29, the City

is submitting an ALP that complies with the FAA's direction to keep the ALP current in regards

to airport facilities and structures such as the runway, taxiways, aprons, structures, hangars and

roads. Additionally, the updated ALP depicts proposed facility improvements and alterations.

Consistent with its designation in the Santa Monica Airport Agreement, executed on January 31,

1984 ("1984 Agreement") and the ALP approved on October 31, 1986, and the subsequent

designation as a B-II airport on the ALP approved on August 20, 1991, the City has updated the

ALP to reflect the requirements of AC 150/5300-13 and FAA Orders 5200.8 and 5200.9.

As discussed in its public hearings and in its meetings with the FAA, the City seeks to comply

with the Runway Safety Area ("RSA") Program objective set forth in FAA Order No. 5200.8

that all RSAs at federally obligated airports conform to the extent practicable to the RSA

standards contained in AC 150/5300-13. As aptly stated in FAA Order 5200.8, the RSA, whose

dimensions are established based upon the Airport Reference Code ("ARC"), is intended to

provide a measure of safety in the event of an aircraft's excursion from the runway by

significantly reducing the extent of personal injury and aircraft damage during overruns,

undershoots and veer-offs. As the supporting documents filed with the revised ALP

demonstrate, implementation of these FAA standards will enhance the overall safety of

tel: 310 458-8591 • fax: 310 572-4495

1
operations on the ground at the Airport and the safety of the residents living in the areas

surrounding the Airport.

One of the documents filed concurrently with this ALP is Addendum #1 to the Design Standards

Study for the Santa Monica Airport. The main part of the study was delivered to the FAA during

prior meetings with City staff. The addendum addresses issues raised by FAA staff in its

meeting with the City on November 20,2003. As is evident from the addendum, the City has

reviewed the feasibility of using an Engineered Materials Arresting System ("EMAS"), other

arresting systems, partial and full RSAs and maintaining the status quo. In the City'S opinion,

the Aircraft Conformance Program represents the best compromise for the Santa Monica Airport.

At the November 20, 2003 meeting, FAA representatives agreed to undertake a study of the issue

of RSAs at the Santa Monica Airport as currently configured.

Therefore, after carefully considering and analyzing the available technology and data relative to

practicable RSA enhancements, the City of Santa Monica has determined that the only way to

achieve the appropriate RSA criteria consistent with FAA safety standards is to employ declared

distances. As depicted on the revised airport layout plan, both runway thresholds would be

displaced 300 feet. Once approved, the declared distances would be published for both runway 3

and Runway 21 as follows:

• Landing distance available (LDA) - 4,387 feet

• Accelerate-stop distance available (ASDA) - 4,787 feet

• Takeoff run available (TaRA) - 4,987 feet

• Takeoff distance available - 4,987 feet

The physical length of the runway remains in place in accordance with the 1984 Agreement.

Enclosed please find, for your review and information, a complete set of approved plans and

specifications detailing the 300' displacement of the thresholds of Runway 03 & 21.

The City looks forward to reviewing the FAA's findings with respect to the issue of RSAs at the

Santa Monica Airport as well as its comments on the documents submitted concurrently with this

letter. Since senior FAA staff members from Washington D.C. were not able to attend the

November 20, 2003 meeting at the Santa Monica Airport, we would welcome the opportunity to

review and discuss, in detail at the FAA Headquarters, the City's intentions and the methodology

used to implement Runway Safety Areas. If the FAA is interested in receiving a further

briefing by the City, please let us know potential dates that such a meeting could occur.

If you have any questions concerning this submittal, please do not hesitate to contact either Jeff

Mathieu, Airport Director or myself. Thank you in advance for your prompt consideration and

cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

~

~'Trim~rn

Airport Manager

2
Santa Monica Airport

Office of the Airport Manager

3223 Donald Douglas loop South, Suite 3

Santa Monica, California 90405

C it y of

Santa Moniea~

May 10, 2004

David L. 8ennett

Director, Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-1

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

Dear Mr. Bennett,

Thank you for responding to the City's November 26, 2003 letter, which recapped the

November 20, 2003 discussion between Airport staff, City consultants and FAA staff

regarding the proposed Aircraft Conformance Program (ACP) and the absence of

runway safety areas at the Santa Monica Airport ("Airport"). Since several statements in

your letter of February 4, 2004 vary from the understandings reached by the participants

in the November 20, 2003 meeting, the City would like to stress the importance of those

understandings and the need to implement them.

The City believes that your comment regarding the Airport's design standards and the

1984 Agreement is a narrow reading that fails to fully set forth the intent of the 1984

Agreement. Your suggestion that any aircraft with a wingspan of less than 79 feet

(Group II maximum wingspan) is acceptable at SMO is inconsistent with the 1984

Agreement and the safe operation of the Airport. Section 8 of the 1984 Airport

Agreement states as follows: "The Airport will be-capable of accommodating most kinds

of general aviation aircraft, generally consistent with Group II Design Standards set forth

in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300.48 dated February 24,1983." Reference to the use

of the Airport by Aircraft Category A and 8 aircraft at the Santa Monica Airport can be

clearly determined by the 1984 Agreement's reference to FAA AC 150/5300-48 which

states in pertinent part

"The standards, recommendations, and guidance material in this Advisory

Circular (AC) define an airport suitable for the less demanding Aircraft

Approach Category A and B airplanes, i.e. airplanes with approach

speeds of less than 121 knots. The other airports need to be designed

and maintained to the standards and, to the extent physically feasible, to

the recommendations in A C 150/5300-12, Airport Design Standards -

Transport Airports, current edition."

During the November 20, 2003 meeting, the participants had significant discussions

about a Runway Safety Area (RSA) determination. The FAA staff present at the meeting

agreed to conduct an RSA determination based upon safety enhancements proposed

by the City of Santa Monica. However, during the discussion of the RSA's (or the

tel: 310 458-8591 1
Airport's lack thereof), Mark McClardy assured all present that the FAA Western Pacific

Region Airports Division would also conduct a Runway Safety Area Determination of the

existing airport configuration. Unfortunately, you were unable to attend the November

20, 2003 meeting and were unaware of this representation to the City. Though the FAA

and the City have had differences of opinion on matters, the City has always

appreciated the FAA's commitment to implement its representations to the City. For

that reason, we assume that the FAA will honor its representation to conduct the

Runway Safety determination of the Airport's current configuration. It would be helpful to

the City for the FAA to set a timetable to complete this review in the near future.

The importance of completing this Runway Safety determination for the Airport's current

configuration is evidenced by the fact that the FAA has made virtually hundreds of RSA

determinations of existing runway configurations at airports throughout the United

States. However, your ietter failed to mention the FAA's commitment to complete this

determination as part of the effort to reach an understanding on the safe operation of

the Santa Monica Airport. In addition, I was somewhat troubled by an incident that

occurred during a session at the recent Airport Management Short Course in Monterey.

When I asked Andy Richards, Manager, San Francisco Airport District Office, what I

should do if FAA staff declined to give an airport an RSA determination, he was a little

perplexed by the question. However, he said that he would be happy to help if I gave

him a call for assistance. When someone in the audience informed Mr. Richards that I

was the manager of Santa Monica Airport, he quickly reversed himself and said that "all

other airports in the region would get an RSA determination except Santa Monica" -

virtually everyone present laughed at my expense. This is not a laughing matter. This

is a life and death matter.

NTSB records indicate there are on average 10 aborted takeoff and landing overruns at

U.S. airports annually. The record shows that the most severe accidents have occurred

at locations that had non-standard RSA's. As you are well aware, Santa Monica Airport

has no RSA - no margin of safety.

When discussing the potential loss of life and destruction of property as a result of the

lack of an RSA at SMO, Miguel Vasconcelos, FAA Airport Compliance Specialist, asked

me in a rhetorical way "has a jet aircraft ever gone off the end of the runway?" Does the

FAA have to wait for people to die and property destroyed before it acts?

Your letter further complicates the City's concerns with regards to liability exposure.

Even though you indicate that "no FAA official has the authority to indemnify the City of

Santa Monica, nor accept any responsibility that has not been specifically assigned to

the FAA under statute. We agree, however, that the City of Santa Monica is not

responsible for safety assessments or RSA determinations made by the FAA pursuant

to its statutory safety authority." While your letter stated that the FAA could not accept

liability for the absence of a runway safety area, it is clear that liability generally flows to

the entity responsible for making the safety 'determination. By moving forward on the

representations made at the November 20,2003 meeting, we can move this issue from

2
theoretical discussions regarding liability to the operation of the Santa Monica Airport in

a safer manner.

We are in the final process of completing our studies regarding the potential use of

EMAS and alternative aircraft arrestment systems. We welcome the opportunity to

further meet and discuss with FAA engineering and specialist staff in the near future to

fully review the proposed RSA enhancements at Santa Monica Airport.

Sincerely,

~~~B rimborn

Airport Manager

cc: Susan McCarthy, City Manager, City of Santa Monica

Marsha Moutrie, City Attorney, City of Santa Monica

Jeff Mathieu, Airport Director, City of Santa Monica

Marty Tachiki, Deputy Attorney, City of Santa Monica

R. Austin Wiswell, Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics

Mike Shutt, Mead & Hunt

Steve Benson, Coffman Associates

Mark McClardy, Airports Division Manager AWP-600, FAA WPR

Miguel Vasconcelos, Airport Compliance Specialist, FAA HQ

3
U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration Office of Airport Safety and

Standards

800 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

FEB - 3 aJ04

Mr. Robert Trimbom

Airport Manager, Santa Monica Airport

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South

Santa Monica, CA 90405

Dear Mr. Trimbom:

Thank you for your letter of November 26,2003, summarizing the meeting of

November 20, 2003, between representatives of Santa Monica Airport, its consultants,

and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). While we agree that the letter is

generally representative of what was discussed at the meeting, we would like to clarify

several statements to ensure all parties have the same understanding of what we will

attempt to accomplish in the coming months.

First, you mention that the 1984 Airport Agreement between FAA and the City of

Santa Monica mandated that the airport conform to B-ll design standards. We note that

the agreement actually does not mandate conformance with design standards, and

makes no mention of Aircraft Approach Category B. The agreement calls for

"accommodating most kinds of general aviation aircraft, generally consistent with

Group II Design Standards".

Next, we agreed that we will make a Runway Safety Area (RSA) Improvement Program

determination based upon the proposed safety enhancements presented by Santa Monica

Airport and its consultants as part of our joint study effort. A RSA determination will

represent a conclusion as to whether the safety enhancements presented mayor may not

be practicable. The RSA practicability review will only consider possible

enhancements to the RSA, and is not an assessment of the existing configuration.

Aircraft operating on the existing runway at Santa Monica, within the parameters set

forth in the respective FAA-approved aircraft flight manuals and conforming to the

applicable Federal Aviation Regulations governing the operation of aircraft, are

operating safely. That point was emphasized by Mr. James Whitehead of the FAA

Office of Flight Standards at the meeting on November 20, 2003.

Finally, regarding the last point in your letter, no FAA official has the authority to

indemnify the City of Santa Monica, nor accept any responsibility that has not been

specifically assigned to the FAA under statute. We agree, however, that the City of

Santa Monica is not responsible for safety assessments or RSA determinations made by

the FAA pursuant to its statutory safety authority.
We look forward to meeting again with your office once your consultants are ready to

present proposed safety enhancements. Those proposals will be assessed by the FAA

under its RSA Improvement Program.

Sincerely,

David L. Bennett

Director of Airport Safety

and Standards

2
e 111 -J Santa Monica Airport

Office of the Airport Manager

3223 Donald Douglas loop South, Suite 3

Santa Monica, California 90405

City of

Santa Monieaw

November 26, 2003

David L. Bennett

Director, Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-1

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

Subject: Aircraft Conformance Program (ACP)

Dear Mr. Bennett,

As I mentioned in our telephone call yesterday, we truly appreciated the

opportunity to meet with FAA regional and headquarters staff on November zo".

The respective FAA teams headed by Mark McClardy and Miguel Vasconcelos

were attentive and allowed us to fully describe our concerns regarding safety and

the continued safe operation of the Santa Monica Airport. Having these

gentlemen visit and inspect the Airport demonstrated the unusually difficult

environment on and surrounding Santa Monica Airport, for accommodating even

a substantial part of a standard RSA at either end of the runway.

In addition we believe that the FAA teams learned first hand that we were merely

trying to utilize existing FAA guidelines to conform to the B-II design standards

mandated by the 1984 Airport Agreement by and between the FAA and City of

Santa Monica .

At the conclusion of the meeting the respective parties agreed to provide the

following no later than March 1, 2004:

1. City shall conduct further consultant studies to better access the life

safety benefits of deploying an Engineering Material Arresting

System, commonly known as EMAS at the end of the runway 21

and 3; Furthermore, a related study to combining an arresting

fence/net system (that was demonstrated during the meeting) is to

be studied;

2. City shall propose and assess mitigated benefits of a more limited

property acquisition and clearance program to provide a minimal

margin of safety to lives and structures nearest the end of the

runways;

tel: 310 458-8591
3. FAA shall make a RSA determination for Santa Monica Airport in its

existing layout; a subsequent second RSA determination will be

made following the submittal of the aforementioned City studies to

ascertain the relative improvements derived by theproposed

enhancernents: and

4. FAA shall provide the City with a clear statement of responsibility

by the FAA for indemnifying and relieving the City of responsibility

for safety assessments, determinations and enforcement relative to

Santa Monica Airport's RSAs. For erroneous or negligent decisions

by the pilot in command, it is understood that neither the FAA nor

the City is responsible.

We both share the same goal of achieving a resolution to our concerns relative to

safe operations of aircraft at Santa Monica Airport. We look forward to meeting

with FAA staff at the earliest possible date once the above matters have been

accomplished. If you have any questions or desire further clarification regarding

this matter, please don't hesitate to give me a call.

Robert Trimborn

Airport Manager
U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration Office of Airport Safety and

Standards

800 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

NOV 1 0 2003

Mr. Robert Trimbom

Airport Manager

Santa Monica Municipal Airport

3223 Donald Douglas Loop S.

Santa Monica, CA 90405

Dear Mr. Trimbom:

As you know, on October 21,2003, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

docketed the complaint by the National Business Aviation Association, Inc.,

Bombardier Aerospace Corp., and Dassault Falcon Jet Corp., filed under

Title 14, Part 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The complaint, docketed as

Docket 16-03-11, relates to the new weight-based landing fees at the Santa Monica

Municipal Airport (SMa) by the City of Santa Monica.

We have learned that the City has begun the levy and collection of those landing fees

at SMa. Unfortunately, the City opted to start implementation despite the FAA having

urged the City on August 14 to delay implementation ofthe landing fee until the FAA

had completed its informal review of the proposed landing fees. We made that request

because it appeared to us that certain aspects of the weight-based landing fees schedule

could be inconsistent with the City's Federal obligations.

At this time, we again urge the City to suspend implementation of the new schedule

landing fee until the current formal Part 16 process is complete or, in the altenative, that

the city place all incremental revenue collected under the new schedule in an escrow

account until a final determination on the compliance issue.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at (202) 267-3053.

Sincerely,

CLw

David L. Bennett

Director of Airport Safety

and Standards
Santa Monica Airport

Office of the Airport Manager

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South, Suite 3

Santa Monica, California 90405

City of

Santa Moni(~a

November 6, 2003

David L. Bennett

Director, Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-1

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

Dear Mr. Bennett,

Thank you for your October 15, 2003 letter regarding the City's proposed Aircraft

Conformance Program (ACP) for the Santa Monica Airport. While the City disagrees

with the position set forth in your October 15, 2003 letter regarding the ability of the City

to adopt the ACP program, we appreciate your recognition of the Airport's unusually

difficult environment on and surrounding the airport. As we have discussed in the past,

it is the close proximity of the homes, the unusual topography and the evolving fleet mix

tending toward larger and faster corporate jets that prompted our comprehensive safety

review of the Airport's operational compatibility.

The ACP is not an artificial restriction on access to the airport. On the contrary, the

proposed ACP seeks to address operational incompatibility and ultimately ensure the

safest possible operating environment for the flying and non-flying public by recognizing

the Airport's design and physical limitations.

We welcome the opportunity to further meet with FAA engineering staff and specialist to

fully review the proposed ACP and discuss meaningful and technically feasible

alternatives to meet FAA RSA design guidelines. I propose that we meet at 9:00 a.m.

on November 20, 2003 at the conference room located within the Santa Monica Airport

Office. The City will have its consultants in attendance that will give a full briefing

regarding the technical analysis that led up to the development of the ACP.

Sincerely,

~·m---

Airport Manager

cc: Marsha Moutrie

tel: 310 458-8591
U.S.Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

Office of the Associate

Administrator for Airports

800 Independence Ave., SW.

Washington, DC 20591

r

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Feinstein:

Thank you for your letter of October 6 for Mr. and Mrs. Jay Segal about the use of

Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO) by jet aircraft.

We believe Mr. Segal is expressing concern about the July 1 Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) proposed policy notice in the Federal Register. This proposed

policy [Docket No. FAA-2003-15495] deals with weight-based restrictions at airports.

The notice makes explicit the specific guidance FAA applies in cases in which airport

sponsors make use of weight-based restrictions as a means of protecting airfield

pavement, while remaining in compliance with their Federal obligations to provide

reasonable access on a nondiscriminatory basis. The FAA is using the notice to seek

comments on the guidance we provide in reviewing the use of weight-based airport access

restrictions as a means of protecting airfield pavement. We do not believe this guidance

would result in larger aircraft using SMO.

Mr. Segal may also be reacting to the City of Santa Monica's study ofa ban on aircraft

with wingspan of79 feet or more or a final approach speed of 121 knots or more. We

have expressed our concerns about this idea to the city, although we have not suggested

that the airport should accept larger aircraft that currently use the airport.

There is no question that SMO has an unusually difficult airport environment for meeting

all FAA standards. There is not enough land to construct a standard runway safety area at

either end of the runway. Housing built many years ago is located relatively close to ends

of the runway. There is also a drop in terrain from runway elevation at both ends of the

runway. City streets border airport property offboth ends of the runway. These

conditions have of course existed for decades. While the number and proportion of jet

operations have increased in recent years, jet aircraft have used the airport safely for

many years.

While we do not believe that any new limitation on use of the airport has yet been

justified, we have met with city officials and expect to have further discussions with the

city on conditions at the airport.
If you or your staff need further help, please contact Mr. David Balloff, Assistant

Administrator for Government and Industry Affairs, at (202) 267-3277.

Sincerely,

Woodie Woodward

Associate Administrator

for Airports

Enclosure

Transmitted Correspondence

File: 20031033-0\A20031 007012

WP: G:AAS400N asconcelos/FinalAirportIssues/20031 033.doc

AAS-400:MV asconcelos:78730:wcck: 10/15/2003 :RT:sb: 10/29/03

AAS-400\1 \1ARP\AOA-3\A WP-600\MVasconcelos

Statistics 20031 033.doc, 332 words

Original, 28 Oct 2003 11:59

Style Index 39, Good for General Writing

Average Sentence 20, Excellent

Passive Index 13, Excellent

2
09:38 3103928091 BAILEY & PARTNERS ~ 202 267 5301 NO. 592 [;1002

2S,-S DONALD I)O\J<;l.A,S Loop !\:ORTH

S!i(':(lNIl FLOOR

SAN,A MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90405-2.959

Pl-IONJ;(:lIO) ,92-5000

F"x (3lO) 39:<-8091

PATl(ICl( E. BA1UY

ATTOfl.N£Y Ill' LIlVi'

j');I/\lLJ;Y (~6AI LEYPARTNE lIS. CO M

OFFICF.S IN SANTA MONICA & SAClUU\f£NTO

October 29, 2003 VIA FACSIMILE 202-267-5301

David L. Bennett

Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-l

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avc., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

Dear Dave:

On behalf of our nationally based aviation clients, we thank you for your very thoughtful and

articulate letter of October 15, 2003 to Mr. Robert Trimborn, Airport Manager of Santa Monica

Airport. It addresses the issues very well.

Ifthis office can be of any assistance to you in collecting data or other information on the ACP issue,

please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,

~~P~k B '1---·

arnc· , a1 ey

BAILEY & PARTNERS

PEB/js

G;\R\lnway\Corrc.,pondcnco\50'\I\cttOO I. wpd
U.S.Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration Office of Airport Safety and

Standards

800 Independence Ave., S.w.

Washington, D.C. 20591

OCT 1 5 2003

Mr. Robert Trimborn

Airport Manager, Santa Monica

Municipal Airport

3223 Donald Douglas Loop S.

Santa Monica, CA 90405

Dear Mr. Trimborn:

On December 10, 2002, the Santa Monica City Council approved in concept the

proposed Aircraft Conformance Program (ACP) and the designation of appropriate

runway safety areas (RSA) at the Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO). In order to

achieve this, the City, through an Airport Design Standards Analysis, proposes to

shorten the runway by displacing the landing thresholds by 300 feet at either end of the

runway.

The ACP proposal asserts that because the runway at Santa Monica has an airport

reference code (ARC) ofB-II, aircraft in a higher category than B-II are incompatible

with the airport. The City argues that SMO is required to accommodate only B-II or

lower category aircraft.

SMO is classified as a reliever airport for Los Angeles International Airport. There are

approximately 400 based aircraft at the airport and approximately 165,000 aircraft

operations each year, more than 101,000 of which are by itinerant aircraft. As

mentioned in the 1984 Settlement Agreement, SMO plays a critical role in the regional

and national system of air transportation and air commerce. SMO serves a "vital and

critical role in its functions as a general aviation reliever airport for the primary air

carrier airports in the area ... by diverting private and corporate aircraft away from the

air carrier airports and other heavily used airports located in the Greater Los Angeles

Area." The ACP would significantly limit the utility of the airport since more than

7,000 jet operations would be adversely affected each year.

FAA records indicate that the planning and development of the airport has been

financed, in part, with funds provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

under the Airport Improvement Program (AlP), authorized by the Airport and Airway

Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, 49 USC § 47101, et seq. Between 1985 and

1994, SMO has received $9.7 million in Federal airport development assistance. In

addition, the airport has incurred obligations in the form of restrictive deed covenants

arising from conveyances ofland executed on August 10, 1948, and April 8, 1949,

under the Surplus Property Act of 1944, as amended, 49 USC § 47151-47153.
2

The idea of shortening the runway and limiting the aircraft that can use the airport was

first discussed by city officials as a noise mitigation measure in connection with the

May 31, 1985, study entitled "Displaced Threshold Noise Test." For several reasons,

including the fact that the displaced threshold would have had very little effect on noise

in the surrounding community, the idea was not pursued at that time.

We know of no action by the City to ameliorate the matter short of the proposed ACP.

For example, the FAA is not aware of any request or action by the City to purchase

additional property off the end of the runway or add fill on airport property to create a

longer RSA for the existing runway.

The RSA is an airport design feature established by the FAA as a safety enhancement to

protect aircraft arrivals and departures. As a safety enhancement, the RSA is not

necessary for operational safety. The RSA extends beyond the ends and sides of the

runway and is not part of the runway itself. Airports holding an airport operating

certificate under 14 C.F.R. part 139 are required to incorporate the standard RSA in all

new runway projects and achieve standard RSA when there is major work on an

existing runway, if practicable.

At many airports it is not practicable to obtain the standard RSA, and a smaller RSA is

considered acceptable. In some cases a displaced threshold and the use of declared

distances, which effectively shorten usable runway, serve to provide a standard RSA.

However, those measures are only employed where they do not interfere with the utility

of an airport, i.e., where the reduced runway length would not significantly interfere

with current and projected operations at the airport. At noncertificated airports, such as

SMa, the FAA will require the sponsor to meet RSA design standards if practicable in

connection with an FAA-funded runway project, but there is no regulatory requirement

to meet RSA standards.

The existence of a RSA is not an operating requirement. It is not required for any

operation under FAA aircraft operating rules (see 14 C.F.R. Parts 91, 121, 125, 135).

Nor is a RSA required to meet the airspace clearance requirements for instrument

approach procedures, under the agency's terminal instrument procedures

manual (TERPS). Safe operation of aircraft requires the availability of a suitable

runway, protected airspace around the runway, and protection of approach and

departure airspace for visual and instrument approaches and departures. SMa has no

airspace obstructions that affect safety of flight, and has a 4,987- foot runway that meets

all FAA design and marking standards for a runway of that length.

",

We have no evidence that aircraft using SMa, of any design category, are being

operated on this runway in violation of 14 C.F.R. part 91.9 (a), which requires the pilot

in command to comply with the operating limitations specified in the FAA-approved

Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) and issued under the applicable FAA airworthiness

standards.
3

Other airport design standards do not appear to be an issue. You have advised us that

aircraft as large as a Gulfstream G-V or Bombardier Global Explorer have wingspans

that conflict with vehicle traffic and other aircraft when those aircraft are on the

runway. The conflict is that the wingtips of those aircraft extend into adjacent taxi

lanes. On that basis you have denied permission for them to use the airport in the

future. This is not inherently unreasonable-all but the largest airports will be unable to

accommodate certain sized aircraft without extraordinary measures, if at all. As a result

of this policy, there are no dimensional conflicts with any aircraft that currently operates

at SMO. There have been no complaints to FAA over this policy, and we do not

consider it an issue in the review ofthe proposed ACP.

There is no question that SMO has an unusually difficult environment on and

surrounding the airport, for constructing even a substantial part of a standard RSA at

either end of the runway. Housing built many years ago is located relatively close to

ends of the runway; there is a substantial drop in terrain from runway elevation at both

ends of the runway; and city streets border airport property offboth ends of the runway.

These conditions have of course existed for decades. While the number and proportion

of jet operations has increased in recent years, jet aircraft in the B-II and higher

categories have used the airport safely for several years.

In its justification for the proposed ACP, the City has cited the protection of residential

areas near the ends of the runway as well as the safety of aircraft. The FAA design

standard intended to serve this function is the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), which is

defined as "an area off the runway end to enhance the protection of people and property

on the ground." FAA encourages airport sponsors to acquire sufficient property interest

in the RPZ to exercise control over land use, and funds such acquisitions through the

Airport Improvement Program. This includes clearing the RPZ of incompatible objects

and activities. Residences are considered inconsistent with the RPZ.

Like the RSA, the RPZ is considered an enhancement to safety and is not required for

aircraft or airport operations. Where it is determined to be impracticable for the airport

owner to acquire and plan the land uses within the entire RPZ, the RPZ land use

standards have recommendation status for the portion of the RPZ not controlled by the

airport owner. To date, however, FAA is not aware of any attempt by the City to

acquire property or use zoning authority to limit the use of land within the standard RPZ

dimensions at SMO.

In summary, because there is no variance from FAA standards with respect to the

runway itself or to the airspace for visual and instrument approaches and departures at

the airport, there is no safety issue with current aircraft operations at the airport, by

aircraft that can use that runway consistent with their operating limitations specified in

the FAA-approved AFM. The FAA is charged by Congress with regulating the safety

of aircraft operations, and the proposed action by an airport operator to determine which

aircraft can safely use the airport raises the constitutional issue of Federal preemption.
4

As noted in the Notice of Investigation, even if not preempted such a restriction would

need to be reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory under the AIP grant assurances,

and in compliance with the terms of the 1984 Settlement Agreement.

Finally, it appears that the ACP, as an artificial restriction on access to the airport by

Stage 2 and 3 aircraft, would be subject to compliance with the Airport Noise and

Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA), 49 U.S.c. §§ 47521 et seq. Accordingly, a proposal to

implement the restriction would require compliance with the review and approval

process set forth in 14 C.F.R. part 161, the agency regulations implementing ANCA.

For all of above reasons we believe that there is sufficient reason for the City not to

implement the proposed ACP at this time. However, in view of the special

considerations of the airport environment off the ends of the runway at SMa, we would

be interested in further discussion with the City on technology and other alternate

approaches to mitigation of those conditions. Possible approaches could involve

embankment fill to provide additional RSA land; aircraft arresting technology; limited

reconfiguration of the runway consistent with other actions and with utility of the

airport; and land use compatibility measures by the City.

For this purpose I would like to propose a meeting between our regional and

headquarters engineering staff and other specialists, and the City and its consultants.

I understand that the City intends to take up the issue of the ACP in the near future

following completion of certain work by the City'S consultant, although to our

knowledge no other action to proceed with the conformance plan has been taken since

December 2002.

We look forward to discussing alternative approaches to this issue with the City.

Sincerely,

David L. Bennett

Director of Airport Safety

and Standards

File: AAS400

WP:G/AAS400/Vasconcelos/Final Airport Issues/SMa ltr OCT.doc

AAS400:MVasconcelos:mv:78730:sb: 10115/03

AAS40011 /AWP -600N asconcelos
DIANNE: fEINSTEIN

Ci<I.IFOflNIA

~tatfs [nate

WAS INGTON. pc 20510- 504

hn :llfelnsfElio,lieOllte.g v

Mr. Quentin Burgess

Manager

Federal A viation Administration

800 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, D.C. 20591

October 6, 2003

INQUIRY FROM: Mr. and Mrs. Jay S gal

RE: Weight Restrictions at Santa Monic Airport

Dear Mr. Burgess:

COMMITTEE ON Af'FROPRfAnoNS

COMMITIEE ON gNERGY AND NATURA~ fl"'SOURces

COMMrmE QN THI: JL/PICfARY

COMMITTl=E ON RULES AND AOMINISTRAno",

S~~ECT COMMlrrEE ON INTEl.l,lGENCE

I am forwarding the attached co tituent inquiry re arding the ability of the Santa Monica

airport to impose usage restrictions for y ur review. I beli ve that my constituent WO\Jldbenefit

from your response to the specific issues aised in the enc], sed letter.

I would appreciate it if you waul return your resp nse to me as quickly as possible so that

I can share the information with Mr. and s. Segal. Sho ld you have any questions, please

contact my Washington, D.C. office at ( 2) 224-3841.

Best Regards.

Sin erely yours,

D' e Fein~tein

Uni ed States Senate

DF:kmm
Santa Monica Airport

Office of the Airport Director

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South, #2

Santa Monica, California 90405-3279

Phone #: (310) 458-2251

FaX#: (310) 391-9996 City of

Santa Moniea~

August 12, 2003

David L. Bennett

Director

Office of Airport Safety and Standards

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

Dear Mr. Bennett:

I am writing to follow up on both our meeting with City Attorney Marsha Moutrie about the

conformance program and your recent telephone conversation with Bob on that topic and others.

Let me begin by saying that we all appreciate the time you have taken to speak and meet with

City representatives about important airport issues. We value these opportunities to share our

concerns and perspectives.

As you know, the conformance program is particularly important to the City. Its importance flows

from the unique, physical characteristics of our airport and its surroundings. SMO is immediately

adjacent to, and surrounded on three sides, by residential neighborhoods. Immediately to the

east and west of the runway ends are busy arterial streets with homes just across those streets.

Further, SMO is situated on a plateau with a hill to the east and a sharp drop off to the west and

southwest. These realities leave little, or no, room for human error. Accordingly, in order to fulfill

our obligation to preserve public safety, the City must proceed with the conformance program at

the earliest opportunity.

At present, we are completing the requisite environmental review and awaiting the conclusion of

certain engineering work. We expect that those efforts will conclude within the next six weeks

and that we will be situated to move forward with the conformance program in the fall.

Meanwhile, the Part 16 proceeding remains pending. I was encouraged to hear your

administrative process would likely be completed within that same time frame. We look forward to

receiving the agency's determination in the near future.

Yours truly,

~~.~

B Trimborn

Airport Manager
07/10/2003 07:08 310-725-5849 FAA SAFETY STDS BR PAGE 03

U.S Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

Western-PacIfic Region

Airports Division

Federal Aviation Administration

P.O. Box 92001

LOSAngeles, CA 9000902001

Jut 022003

Mr. Rob';ll:-t D. 'T,;J.;;i.ro.boJ;n, CAE

Airport Manager

Santa Monica Municipal Airport

3223 Donald Douglas Loop, 8#3

Santa Monica, CA 90405-3279

Dear Mt. Trimborn:

Proposed Amendment of Santa Monica Code Ordinance Seotion 10.04.06.100

Weight-Based Landing Fees at Santa MOnica Airport

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is currently reviewing the

city of Santa Monica's (City) proposed amendment of Ordinance Section

10.04.06.100 addressing landing fees ~nd associated documentation for

consistency with the City's federal obligations. The runway pavement

cat.a and r at ionat e used by the City to ceve i op the landing tee schedule

will be subject to FAA evaluation. We respectfully request th~t the

~;rp~r~ nnt ;mplp.mp.ntor enforce the proposed landing fee schedule

until the FAA has had an opportunity to evaluate the p:r:oposal and

provide comments, as necessary.

If you have any questions, plea06e contact Ruben Cabalbag, Supervisor,

Standards Section, Airports Division, at (310) 725-3621.

Sincerely,

Wayne Heibeck.

Acting Manager, Airports Division

Cc: AAS-400, AWP-600A, AWP-620A.,AWP-67.1

File: Santa Monica Compliance File

D;\Word\20030617·03(a)

AWP-620:ELChan:X3620:rnmw:7/2/03
Santa Monica Airport

Office of the Airport Manager

3223 Donald Douglas loop South. Suite 3

Santa Monica. California 90405

City of

Santa Moni<~a'

May 21,2003

David L. Bennett

Director, Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-1

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

Dear Mr. Bennett:

On behalf of the City of Santa Monica and Marsha Moutrie, I want to thank you, once again,

for taking time out of your busy schedule to visit the Santa Monica Airport. We thought it was very

important that you see, for yourself, both the exceptionally close proximity of homes to both ends of

the runway and the unusual topographic situation of the Airport with hills immediately to the east and

a bluff to the west. These realities leave virtually no room for human error. Together with the

evolution of the fleet mix toward larger and faster jets, these realities prompted our comprehensive

safety review of the Airport's operation compatibility.

As we explained during your visit, this review led to the inevitable conclusion that it is

virtually impossible to modify or change the physical layout of the Airport to safely accommodate the

more demanding C & D category aircraft in a manner consistent with current FAA design standards.

The proposed Aircraft Conformance Program seeks to address this operational incompatibility and

thereby ensure the safest possible operating environment for the flying and non-flying public.

We were encouraged to learn from you that your technical and engineering staff were revisiting the issue, and we look forward to receiving information about the results of their analysis as

soon as possible. If there is additional information we can supply which would facilitate and

expedite their work, we will, of course, supply it promptly. Also, as I mentioned during your visit, we

would be happy to provide anyone on your staff with a tour of the Airport if that would advance their

work. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to assist.

Vve hope and trust that this matter can be resoived iii the very near "future. it was a pieasure

visiting with you at the MAE Conference, as well as at the Airport, and I look forward to continuing

our open and frank dialogue at the earliest possible date.

Sincerely,

~~

Robert Trimborn

Airport Manager

cc: Marsha Moutrie, City Attorney

1

tel: 310 458-8591
e '1

-~

Santa Monica Airport

Office of the Airport Manager

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South, Suite 3

Santa Monica, California 90405

C 11y of

Santa Monica;M

May 7,2003

Mr. William Withycombe (AWP-1), Regional Administrator

Western Pacific Region

Federal Aviation Administration

P.O. Box 92007 WWPC

Los Angeles, California 90009

Re: Request for Grant Reimbursement for AlP Project No. 3-06-0239-06(11)

Dear Mr. Withycombe:

On August 13, 2002 the City of Santa Monica submitted the Final Outlay and Request for

Reimbursement form and the final Construction Report for the above referenced project. The

amount of the grant reimbursement request totaled $240,600. This AlP project represented the

last federally funded capital improvement project as recognized in the 1984 Settlement

Agreement.

Following the City's submittal of this request, I was contacted by John Milligan who informed

me that the FAA had decided to withhold the grant reimbursement pending the outcome of the

Notice of Investigation (FAA Docket No. 16-02-08) initiated by the FAA on October 8,2002.

The requested reimbursement funds represent a substantial amount of revenue that could be

utilized for much-needed and differed airfield maintenance projects. I implore the FAA to

reconsider this matter and approve the requested grant reimbursement so the funds can be

used to enhance and maintain the Santa Monica Airport.

As always, I truly appreciate your help and assistance in these types of matters. If you have

any questions or desire further clarification regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to

contact me at (310) 458-8772.

Sincerely,

~~~_.

Bob Trimborn

Airport Manager

Santa Monica Airport

cc: David Bennett

tel: 310 458-8591
April 27,2003 BOARD OF DIRECTORS2003 DIRECTORS

SANTA MONICA AIRPORT ASSOCIATION

3021 Airport Avenue Suite 210, Santa Monica, California 90405-6117

Mr. David L. Bennett

Director, Office of Airport Safety

and Standards

Federal Aviation Administration

400 Seventh Street, SW

Washington, DC 20590

Chariman: Barry Schiff Dale Benson James Platler

Emeritus: Donald H Brandsen Chris Brunt Dick Rohaly

Joe Chizmadia James Ross

President: James Barton Daniel Cytron Dave Shaby

Vice-President: Bob Young Walt Davie Randy Stein

Secretary: Mary Elizabeth Booth Ruth Dugan-Reid Paul Wolcott

Tresurer: Judi Barker Bernie Harris Bill Worden

Griff Hoerner

Veronica Jones 99's Position:

Jule Lamm Dorothy Limbach

Bob Lench Rachel Bonzon

Gery Moret

202-366-4731

Dear Mr. Bennett;

Our Association was pleased that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

was going to address the conduct of the City of Santa Monica (City) in your filing of a

14 C.F.R., Part 16, Subpart D Complaint, FAA Docket NO.1 6-02-08 against the City.

However, in reading that document it appears that the FAA is not going to seriously

address the Displaced Threshold Runway issue for SMO Runway 3/21. As noted in the

FAA's complaint the City is in the process of either relocating or displacing SMO

Runway 3/21. We hope that the FAA would prosecute the Displaced Threshold Runway

issue with the same effort anticipated for the Group 1 1 Design Standards set forth in

FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300.4B dated February 24, 1983.

The Association therefore submits the following for your consideration.

Relocated or Displaced

Runway 3/21 SMO

Relocation of Runway 3/21 SMO

The 1984 Santa Monica Airport Agreement precludes the City of Santa Monica from

any attempts of relocating SMO runway 3/21 as stated in the following Sections:

Sec. 8, pg. 9 "The City will operate and maintain the Airport ....or its capacity in terms of runway

length and width, taxiway system, and runway weight bearing strength until July 1, 2015."

Sec. 9, pg. 9 "At the present time the Santa Monica Airport has one runway designated 3/21 which is
5,000 feet long and 150 feet wide. This runway will be continuously maintained in good operating condition

by the City. "

Sec. 12, pg. 11 "The full runway length of 5,000 feet will be available at all time for takeoff and will

be available for use by landing airplanes in an emergency situation."

Displaced Threshold Runway 3/21 SMO

The 1984 Santa Monica Airport Agreement precludes the City of Santa Monica from

displacing the thresholds of runway 3/21 as stated in the following Section:

Sec. 12, pg. 11 "If it is determined that noise impact is likely to increase. no further testing will be

performed and the landing threshold will not be displaced."

Threshold Displacement Preliminary Test

The City of Santa Monica conducted the Preliminary Test for a Displaced

Threshold per the terms of the 1984 Santa Monica Airport Agreement in Section 12 as

stated: "A preliminary test will be conducted to determine if threshold displacement is likely to increase or

decrease community noise impact."

The Preliminary Test was conducted, and found an increase in noise impact to

the community if the landing threshold was displaced, thereby making the reminder of

Section 12 of the 1984 Santa Monica Airport Agreement inapplicable ..

If we can be of any further assistance please don't hesitate to contact us.

Respectfully Submitted,

Donald H Brandsen

Legal & Political Action Committee Chairman

Santa Monica Airport Association

PS See Attachments:

1984 Santa Monica Airport Agreement Highlights

1984 Santa Monica Airport Agreement Section 12

History of Documents .
, 984 Santa Monica Airport Agreement Highlights

January 24,1984

RESOLUTION NUMBER _

CONTRACTNO. 4069(CCS)

Executed January 31, 1984

SANTA MONICAAIRPORTAGREEMENT

Sec. 7, pg. 7 & 8

Section 7. Material Terms of Agreement.

b. The runway/taxiway configuration as shown on the Airport Layout Plan (Section 9 and 10).

Sec. 8, pg. 9

Section 8. Commitment to Operate Airport

The City will operate and maintain the Airport as a viable functioning facility without derogation of its

role as a general aviation reliever airport as described in section 2(b)(i) of this Agreement or its capacity in

terms of runway length and width, taxiway system, and runway weight bearing strength until July 1, 2015.

Sec. 9, pg. 9 & 10

Section 9. Runway/Taxiway Configuration.

At the present time the Santa Monica Airport has one runway designated 3/21 which is 5,000 feet long

and 150 feet wide. This runway will be continuously maintained in good operating condition by the City.

It is recognized that the VASI lights may be relocated if the landing threshold is displaced pursuant to Section

12.

Sec. 10, pg. 10

Section 10. Runway Exit System.

In addition, a centrally located area adjacent to the runway will be established, designated, and maintained to

permit aircraft to exit the runway without using a designated taxiway.

Sec. 12, pg. 11 & 12

Section 12. Displaced Landing Threshold.

The city has indicated a desire to modify the existing runway by displacing the threshold by 500 feet

for airplanes landing at the airport.

A preliminary test will be conducted to determine if threshold displacement is likely to increase or

decrease community noise impact. If it is determined that noise impact is likely to increase, no further testing

will be performed and the landing threshold will not be displaced.

The full runway length of 5,000 feet will be available at all time for takeoff and will be available for use by

landing airplanes in an emergency situation.
1984 Santa Monica Airport Agreement Section 12

January 24,1984

RESOLUTION NUMBER _

CONTRACT NO. 4069(CCS)

Executed January 31, 1984

SANTA MONICA AIRPORT AGREEMENT

Section 12. Displaced Landing Threshold.

The city has indicated a desire to modify the existing runway by

displacing the threshold by 500 feet for airplanes landing at the airport.

There is some uncertainly regarding the effect of such an action in two

areas: (1) whether this action would increase or decrease noise; (2) what

effect, if any, there would be on air safety and the ability of the Airport

to provide the level and type of service described in Sections 2(b)(i) and 8.

In order to analyze the potential effects of displacing the landing

threshold by 500 feet, the parties agree to establish a trial program for a

period not to exceed one (1 ) year during which the effects of displacing

the landing threshold by 500 feet will be investigated.

A preliminary test will be conducted to determine if threshold

displacement is likely to increase or decrease 'community noise impact. If

it is determined that noise impact is likely to increase, no further testing

will be performed and the landing threshold will not be displaced. If it is

not determined that noise impact is likely to increase, the landing

threshold will be displaced for a period of up to one year, and the various

effects of threshold displacement will be examined.

A final determination concerning this question of runway

displacement will be made by the City after consultation with the FAA at

the conclusion of this study based on the results of the study. This final

determination can be made at any point in time within the designated oneyear period. The parties agree to cooperate in the design and conduct of

the test and to consult concerning the data obtained. The full runway

length of 5,000 feet will be available at all time for takeoff and will be

available for use by landing airplanes in an emergency situation.
HISTORY of DOCUMENTS

Document Index

5/16/1984 SMAA BOD minutes re: Acting Airport Director speeks, City intends

to implement the agreement in good faith. Brandsen concerned about implementing

displaced threshold.

7/23/1984 SMAA BOD meeting and agenda re: GAMA/NBAA participation in noise

abatement procedure development by Hank Dittmar. Includes 6/1 5/84 minutes re:

Test of a Displaced Threshold for runway.

4/15/1985 SMAA BOD Minutes re: "Motion was approved to urge the City to not

perform a "moved monitor" test of the displaced threshold, but to actually paint a

displaced line on the runway."

5/20/1985 SMAA BOD Minutes re: A line will be painted on Runway 21 to test

the displaced threshold.

04558-04571

15531-15544

5/31/1985 Draft Displaced Threshold Noise Test Santa Monica Municipal Airport

by Vincent Mestre of Mestre Greve Associates May 31, 1985. Statement: "An

investigation was conducted at the time which identified the potential noise

reduction as well as an estimate of aircraft that may not be able to use the airport as

a result of the shorter runway ("Airport Layout Plan and Noise Mitigation Program for

Santa Monica Airport," September 1983)."; and "The first phase test was designed to

measure the maximum noise benefit that would occur from an ideally flown (from a

noise point of view) displaced threshold approach. The second phase test would be

used to measure something closer to the real noise benefit that might result from a

displaced threshold. If the first phase test showed that the displaced threshold had

no significant potential for noise reduction then the testing would not continue and

the displaced threshold alternative would be eliminated from consideration."; and "5.

Conclusions The difference in noise level, both in terms of Lmax and SENEL, for an

ideally flown displaced threshold is insignificant when compared to the ability of the

human ear to detect small differences in noise levels between aircraft noise events.

Under even the most ideal circumstances the noise benefit of the displaced threshold

is lower than the 3 dBA difference needed for noticeable benefit to the human

observer. The displaced threshold will not produce even this 3 dBA difference. The

human ear is just barely able to discriminate differences of 3 dBA between separate

discontinuous noise events. For that reason, and the fact that the displaced threshold
in practice may not even produce the small benefit measured here, the displaced

threshold is not recommended for further consideration. II

7/1 5/1985 SMAA BOD Minutes re: liThe displaced threshold test

report sent to FAA, indicating that there were no statistically significant

changes in noise level based on relocating the threshold."

9/3/85 landing threshold would cause more noise to West of Airport

0431

9/23/1985

Airport.

SMAC agenda re: Report on Test of Displaced Threshold Runway at

04550-04552

13936-13938

15528-15530

21313-21315

26724-26726

9/23/1985 SMO Director to SMO Airport Commission re: Report on Test of

Displaced Threshold for Runway 21 at Santa Monica Airport. Statement: "This report

request that the Airport Commission accept a report by the City's noise consultant

which recommends that the City not institute a displaced threshold on Runway 21 .II;

Statement: IIRecommendation. Staff respectfully recommends that the Airport

Commission 1) Accept the displace threshold test; 2) Direct the Airport Director to

communicate these findings to the Federal Aviation Administration along with the

recommendation that the landing threshold for Runway 21 not be displaced.1I and

"Computer noise models generated by the City' noise consultant in 1982 and 1983

predicted that a threshold displacement would have minimal impact on noise east of

the runway and could have a detrimental impact west of the runway." Note

Compliance with 1984 Airport Agreement as to Section 12 Displaced Landing

Threshold of the 1984 Airport Agreement paragraph three on page 11 is sited.

Statement: II 'A preliminary test will be conducted to determine if threshold

displacement is likely to increase or decrease community noise impact. If it is

determined that Noise impact is likely to increase, no further testing will be

performed and the landing threshold will not be displaced. It is not determined that

noise impact is likely to increase, the landing threshold will be displaced for a period

of up to one years, and the various effects of the threshold displacement will be

examined.' To meet this requirement, the City retained Mestre Greve Associates to

conduct a test to measure the maximum theoretical benefit that might be obtained

from a displaced threshold under ideal conditions. II; and liThe test results showed that

under ideal conditions the difference in noise level is insignificant (less than 1

decibel SENEL). Under even the most ideal circumstances, then, the noise benefit of
the displaced threshold is less than the 3 decibel difference needed to be even

noticeable to the human ear. Furthermore, the noise study concluded that a displaced

threshold might generate more noise on the west end of the runway as pilots

executing touch and go operations would be further down the runway before they could

take off."; and Recommendation "2) Direct the Airport Director to communicate these

findings to the Federal Aviation Administration along with the recommendation that

the landing threshold for Runway 21 not be displaced." Touch-and-Go

13939-13943

15523-15527

26727-26730

0435-0439

04553-04557

9/23/1985 Santa Monica Airport Commission Minutes re: Discussion

of Plans for Extension of Clover Park, Report on Test of Displaced

Threshold for Runway by Mestre-Greve Associates. Minutes state: "The

test was called for in the City's agreement with the FAA to determine if

displacing the landing threshold by 500 feet would cause airplanes to

generate less noise on approach. Test result showed the decrease in noise

levels east of the airport from a displaced threshold was imperceptible to

the human ear. The test also indicated the displaced threshold would

generate increased noise for residents west of the Airport. Commissioner

Badt moved to accept the displaced threshold test and to direct the

Airport Director to communicate the findings to the FAA with the

recommendation that the landing threshold for Runway 21 not be

displaced.

Note Statement: "The test also indicated the displaced threshold would

generate increased noise for residents west of the Airport. Commissioner

Badt moved to accept the displaced threshold test and direct the Airport

Director to communicate the findings to the FAA with the recommendation

that the landing threshold for Runway 21 not be displaced."

14713-14715

9/25/1986 SMO Staff job meeting with Calfon Minutes of Job Meeting re:

Runway Threshold Displacement 500 feet.
U.S.Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

Office of the Associate

Administrator for Airports

800 Independence Ave., SW.

Washington, DC 20591

(\

"

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Feinstein:

Thank you for your letter of January 2 on behalf of Mr. Ofer Grossman regarding the

implementation of the Aircraft Conformance Program (ACP) at Santa Monica

Municipal Airport (SMO).

As you may know, the city of Santa Monica (the city) assumed various Federal

obligations including grant assurances stemming from Federal funds provided by the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP),

authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982. In addition, in 1984,

the city entered into a settlement agreement (1984 Settlement Agreement) with the FAA

and other parties to resolve litigation related to the operation of SMO.

Consequently, the city is required to maintain and operate its airport facilities safely,

efficiently, and in accordance with specified conditions which include keeping SMO

open and available to and for public use on fair and reasonable terms, without unjust

discrimination, and without granting any exclusive rights prohibited by law.

Furthermore, before the city can implement ACP or any other restriction impacting

Stage 2 or Stage 3 aircraft, the city must comply with the Airport Noise and Capacity

Act of 1990 (ANCA) and 14 CFR Part 161, which the city has not done. Thus, any

actions taken by the airport sponsor that conflict with these obligations and ANCA are

of serious concern to the FAA.

On July 22, 2002, the Santa Monica Airport Commission passed a motion

recommending that the Santa Monica City Council implement, by ordinance, the ACP

at SMO. The ACP would restrict aircraft operations at SMO to only those aircraft that

meet the standards for an airport with Airport Reference Code (ARC) designations of

A-I, B-1, and B-II, I notwithstanding the fact that aircraft with other than these

designations have a long history of operating safely at SMO.

On the same date, the FAA's Western-Pacific Region Airports Division notified the city

that "restricting aircraft operations based on the design category of SMO would not be

consistent with the city's Federal obligations to provide airport access to the public on

reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination or with the city's 1984 Settlement

Agreement with the FAA and other parties." In addition, the FAA notified the city of

the ANCA implications resulting from an implementation of the ACP. The FAA also

IThe Airport Reference Code is an FAA coding system used to relate airport design criteria to the "Operational and

physical characteristics of the aircraft for which the airport was designed.
2

recommended that "the airport defer any further action regarding the ACP pending

further review and comment by the FAA." Despite the FAA's recommendations, the

motion was passed.

On October 1, 2002, the FAA met with representatives of SMa and reiterated its

concerns regarding the ACP. SMa representatives continued to maintain that the ACP

is consistent with the city's grant obligations and the 1984 Settlement Agreement.

Additionally, the SMa representatives continued to maintain that the city need not

comply with the requirements of ANCA since the restrictions were needed for safety

reasons. Given Santa Monica's position, the FAA saw no reason to await the

acceptance of the ACP by the city before initiating an investigation, since once

implemented, the ACP could impact the operations of several thousand aircraft in the

already congested Southern California area. As a consequence, the FAA issued the

Notice of Investigation on October 8, 2002, and once again, recommended that the city

defer further action regarding the ACP. Unfortunately, despite this, the city approved

the ACP on December 10, 2002.

For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of the FAA's Notice of Investigation.

This Notice sets forth the FAA's reasons for the investigation and invites the city to

resolve the matter informally. We believe the issuance ofthe Notice during the city's

consideration of the ACP proposal is both fair and efficient and permits resolution of

those issues before the city commits substantial resources to the plan. The city has

requested, and the FAA has agreed, to meet to further discuss the issue. Weare in the

process of arranging for such a meeting.

If you or your staff need further assistance, please contact Mr. David Balloff, Assistant

Administrator for Government and Industry Affairs, at (202) 267-3277.

Sincerely,

Origtnal Signed by:

"'

t"""lr,":~'··\

.U,,,,'.~.i.·,~

"'!.·'''.....

~--

-,,h:;

.': ~"':"l

.ard

Woodie Woodward

Associate Administrator

for Airports

Enclosures

Transmitted Correspondence

File: 20030038-01 A20030109000

WP: G:AAS400N asconcelos/FinalAirportIssues/SMO Feinstein.doc

AAS400:Mvasconcelos:mv:78730:sb:0 1/16/03:R T:O1/21103

AAS400/1/ ARPI AWP-600N asconcelos
Santa Monica Airport

Office of the Airport Manager

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South, Suite 3

Santa Monica, California 90405

City of

Santa Monica'"

December 23, 2002

David L. Bennett

Director, Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-1

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

Dear Mr. Bennett,

As the enclosed Staff Report indicates, on December 10, 2002, as part of the Santa

Monica City Council's approval in-concept of the proposed Aircraft Conformance

Program, the City Council also directed staff to continue its discussions with the FAA on

this issue. As you are aware, the City accepted the proposal set forth In the Notice of

Investigation to continue our discussions regarding the Aircraft Conformance Program.

I therefore would like to invite you and members of the FAA staff to meet with City staff

to continue our meaningful discussions regarding this matter.

The City's three prior briefings to the staff of the FAA's Western-Pacific Region have

helped sharpen the focus of the discussion relating to the Aircraft Conformance

Program. Continuing the dialogue that has been occurring since May 3

rd of this year

will only bring the City and the FAA closer to its mutual goal of providing the safest

. possible operatin environment for the flying and non-flying ublic by ensuring that the

Airport is utilized by on y aircra that are compatible with the Airport's design an

physical limitations.

Please contact my office at the earliest possible date to arrange a mutually agreeable

meeting date and time. If you have any questions or desire additional clarification

regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to give me a call at (310) 458-8772.

Sincerely,

~~.-~

Bob Trimborn

Airport Manager

enclosure

tel: 310 458-8591
til Santa Monica Airport

Office of the Airport Manager

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South, Suite 3

Santa Monica, California 90405

City of

Santa Monica'"

December 23, 2002

David L. Bennett

Director, Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-1

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

Dear Mr. Bennett,

As the enclosed Staff Report indicates, on December 10,2002, as part of the Santa

Monica City Council's approval in-concept of the proposed Aircraft Conformance

Program, the City Council also directed staff to continue its discussions with the FAA on

this issue. As you are aware, the City accepted the proposal set forth In the Notice of

Investigation to continue our discussions regarding the Aircraft Conformance Program.

I therefore would like to invite you and members of the FAA staff to meet with City staff

to continue our meaningful discussions regarding this matter.

The City's three prior briefings to the staff of the FAA's Western-Pacific Region have

helped sharpen the focus of the discussion relating to the Aircraft Conformance

Program. Continuing the dialogue that has been occurring since May 3

rd of this year

will only bring the City and the FAA closer to its mutual goal of providing the safest

. possible operatin environment for the flying and non-flying ublic by ensuring that the

Airport is utilized by only aircra t t at are compatible with the Airport's esign and

physical limitations.

Please contact my office at the earliest possible date to arrange a mutually agreeable

meeting date and time. If you have any questions or desire additional clarification

regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to give me a call at (310) 458-8772.

Sincerely,

~Aj~-

Bob Trimborn

Airport Manager

enclosure

tel: 310 458-8591
11/04/03 TUE 09:09 FAX 310 725 6847 FAA AIRPORTS DIVISION

~-,'-.,~f)

'.... ' ..' - -

Mr. Martin T. Tachiki

City of Santa Monica

Office of the City Attorney - City Hall

1685 Main Street

P.O. Box 2200

Santa Monica, California 90407-2200

Dear Mr. Tachiki:

Re: Freedom of Information Act (FOIAl Request # 2003-o00893WP

This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated

October 29. 2002, concerning document or documents regarding the written detennination

of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Regional Airports Manager regarding Runway

Safety Area for the Santa Monica Airport. You also requested all documents relating to the

determination by the FAA on Category C and 0 aircraft. Your letter has also been

forwarded to our Airports Division. They will furnish a separate response.

A search for records responsive to your request was conducted at the Los Angeles Flight

Standards District Office. This office did not find any documents in their files specific to your

request and we are unaware of any other office likely to possess the records you seek.

There are no fees associated with this request

Larry G. Kephart, Manager, Flight Standards Division, and the undersigned are responsible

for this no records determination. Should you consider this no records response a denial of

your request, you may request reconsideration of this determination by writing to the

Assistant Administrator for Regions and Center Operations, 800 Independence Avenue,

S.W .. Washington, D.C., 20591 Your request must be made in writing within 30 days from

the date of receipt of this letter and must include all information and arguments relied upon.

Your letter must state that it is an appeal from the above-described denial of a request made

under the FOIA. The envelope containing the appeal should be marked "FOIA."

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

\NllUA.M C. WITHYCOMBE

cc: AWP-4

RECEIVED

DEC 19 2D02

EXECUTIVE RESOURCE STAFF: AWP·4

William C. Withycombe

Regional Administrator
11/04/03 rUE 09:10 FAX 310 725 6847 FAA AIRPORTS DIVISION ~UU(

Westem-Padfito Region

ElteclJtive Resoul'l:e Staff

P. O. Box 9~07

Los Angeles. CA 90009-2007

u.s. Deportme~t

of TronsportC1'i~n

F8derol AV1aiIOl"l

Admlnlslrati0ll"

November ~, 2002

I

Mr. Martin Ifacbiki

City of San~ Monica

Office of the City Attorney - City Hall

1685 Main Street

P. O. Box 2200 .

Santa Monica, CA 90407-2200

Re: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request #2003-000893WP

I

Dear Mr. Tachilti:

'This will acknowledge receipt of your FOIA request dated October 29,2002,

concerning document or documents regarding the written determination oftbe FAA

Regional Airports Manager regarding Runway Safety Area for the Santa Monica

Airport andlall documents relating to the determination by the FAA on Category C and

D aircraft. ! .

I

Your request has been assigned to our Airports Division to search for responsive

records. You will receive a response from that office.

Because of our backlog ofFOIA requests and our policy ofhan.dling such requests on a

"first in - first out" basis, you will receive a response within 30 days from the dare of

this letter. .

Should youlwish to inquire as to the status of your request, please contact Lajuana

Thompson at (310) 725-3600.

I

Sincerely, I

~.4-_i •. O.~

--L:'" Sarlette Young

7J~-Regional FOIA Coordinator
11/04/03 TUE 09:10 FAX 310 725 6847 FAA AIRPORTS DIVISION

Office of the City Attorney

City Hall ,

1685 Main Street

PO BOle 2200

Santa Monica, California 90407-2200

City of

S:ant.:a MODieaOctober 29,2002

U.s Mail, Return Receipt Requested

Ms. Carlette Young, FOIA Coordinator

FAA Western-Pacific Region, AWP-4

P.O. Box 92007

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007

RECEIVED

NOV -.42002

EXECUTIVE RESOURCE STAff, AWp·4

Re: Freedom ofInfonnation Act Request

Dear Ms. Young:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("'FOIA"), the City of Santa Monica

('"City") hereby requests a complete copy of the 'following documents with all attachments

in paper format:

1. The document or documents regarding the written determination of the

FAA Regional Airports Division Manager regarding the Runway Safety Area for the

Santa Monica Municipal Airport ("Airport") required by Section 305c of Chapter 3

(Runway Design) of AC 150/5300-13 CHG-7 (dated October 1,2002).

2- On or about October 8, 2002, the FAA issued a Notice of Investigation

('~OI") in the administrative proceeding entitled In the Matter of Compliance With

Federal Obligations By The City of Santa Monica, Califomi~ FAA Docket No. 16-02-08,

which stated on page 8 that" ... instrument approach charts published by the FAA for

SMO provide instrument approach procedures for the airport up to Category D aircraft.

Thus. FAA has already determined that at least some operations by Category C and D

aircraft, which are larger and faster than B-II, can be safety operated at SMO," The City

hereby requests a copy of all documents with attachments in paper form that

a. Document the determination by the FAA that "some operations by

Category C and D aircraft can be safety operated at the Santa Monica Municipal Airport",

b. ',Document which Category C and D aircraft can be safety operated at

the Santa Monica Municipal Airport, .

c. Document which Category C and D aircraft cannot be safely

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

tel: 310458-8336 • fax: 310 395-6727 (FOIA, REQUEST #i2BP2.~3~r:'

'.
11/04/03 TUE 09:10 FAX 310 725 6847 FAA AIRPORTS DIVISION 141009

I

Ms. Carlette Yeung, FOlA Coordinator

October 29,2002

Page 2 i

operated at the Santa Monica Municipal Airport.

The cityiof Santa Monica is willing to pay for the reasonable cost of obtaining this

information; however, if the cost will exceed $25.00 we request that you inform us of the

charge or grant us a fee waiver pursuant to the FAA Freedom of Information Act

Program, Chapter 4, Sections 45( c) and 46. Release of the above requested information

does not involve the commercial interests of the City of Santa Monica.

Sincerely,

MARTIN T. TACHIKI

Deputy City Attorney

mtt:hs
U.S.Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

Office of Airport Safety and

Standards

800 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

OCT 8 2002

Mr. Robert Trimbom

Airport Manager

Santa Monica Municipal Airport

3223 Donald Douglas Loop S.

Santa Monica, CA 90405

Dear Mr. Trimbom:

FAA Docket No. 16-02-08

Enclosed please find a Notice of Investigation in the matter of compliance by the City

of Santa Monica regarding the Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO), Docket No. 16-

02-08. This investigation is being conducted under FAR Part 16, Rules of Practice for

Federally Assisted Airport Proceedings.

In the interim, we ask that you suspend any consideration for implementing the Aircraft

Conformance Program until this matter can be resolved.

Sincerely,

David L. Bennett

Director, Airport Safety

and Standards

Enclosure
Santa Monica Airport

Office of thC!' Airport Manager

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South, Suite 3

Santa Monica, California 90405

• ity of

Sant,a Monica"

S~ptember 10, 2002

Mr. John Milligan

Supervisor Standards Section AWP-621

Federal Aviation Administration

Western-Pacific Region Airports Division

P.o. Box 92007 WWPC

Los Angeles, California 90009

Dear John,

As we have discussed, the City of Sarita Monica would liKeto invite members 0 the FAA staff to

the Santa Monica Airport for a full briefing regarding the findings of the recently onducted

dp-~ignstandards analysis of the Airport. The analysis reviewed the Airport's p sicel timitatlons

and its compatibility with the emerging fleet mix of aircraft using the facility. Ad itionally, staff

will give an overview of a proposed Aircraft Conformance Program (ACP) desig ed to ensure

that aircraft using the facility are oompatible with the Airport's design and physic I limitations in

order to provide the safest possible operating environment for the flying and no -flying public.

We are proposing that the meeting take place on October 1

st 2002 at 11:30.A.M at the

oonference room within the Airport Administration Building located at 3223 Don Id Douglas

Loop South. A modest lunch will be provided. The briefrny will be conducted by Airport staff and

staff from the aviation consulting firm of Coffman Associates. Following the bri mg, staff will

conduct a tour of the Santa Monica Airport to give the attendees a better unde tanding ofthe

Airport's physical plant and its proximity to the residential neighborhoods.

If this invitation is acceptable, please RSVP Withthe number of individuals wllo ill be attending.

Additionally, If you or other members of the FAA staff, have specific questions r concerns

rcg::uding the airport design/fleet mix analysis or thp. proposed ACP. please fo ard them to me

at the earliest possible date so they can be more fully addressed during the bri fing. If you have

any questions or desire additional information regarding this matter, please don t he'~itat~ to give

me a call at (310) 458-8772.

tel: 310 458-8591

. ""RE-CEiVED ..

r--" ""

SEP I 3 '2002 ,

L . . -, ._---J

AIRPORTS ~)iVIS10N

AWP ··511
HOGAN & HARTsON

L.L.p.

E. TAZEWELL ELLETT

PARTNER

(202) 637-c'l644

ETELLEIT® HHLA W •COM

COLUMBIA SQUARE

555 THIRTEENTH STREET. NW

WASHINGTON. DC 20004-1109

TEL (202) 6117-5600

FAX (202) 6117-5910

August 6, 2002

David L. Bennett, Esq.

Director

Office of Airport Safety & Standards, AAS-1

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

BY HAND DELIVERY

Re: Santa Monica Airport

Dear Mr. Bennett:

The history of the Santa Monica Airport is the story of a small,

Southern California airfield that grew to become a vital component in the airspace

system of what is now known as the Greater Los Angeles Area. It also is the story

of an airport that has been almost constantly beset in recent years by local political

efforts to chase away jet aircraft operations and even to close the Airport altogether.

As the Federal Aviation Administration is well aware, some of these anti-jet and

anti-airport initiatives have conflicted with the obligations of the City of Santa

Monica under its federal Instrument of Transfer of the Airport property, its

agreements with the U.S. Government, and its general responsibility to abide by

relevant federal statutes and regulations.

The latest proposal being advanced by the Airport Director - a

complete ban on every aircraft that has a wingspan greater than 79 feet or a

minimum approach speed of 121 knots or more - shows that the anti-jet, antiairport political efforts in Santa -Monica continue unabated.

It is imperative that the FAA step in now, as it had to do in the early

1980s, to ensure that the City of Santa Monica does not violate its legal obligations

with respect to the Airport, and to ensure that aircraft will be able to continue using

the Airport on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms. If the FAA does not

intervene, the City of Santa Monica very likely will take actions at its Airport that

BlI.USSEl.'l BUDAI'EST* WNDON MOSCOW PARIS" PRAGUE" WARSAW

BALTIMORE,MD COWRADO SPRINGS. CO DENVER,CO WS ANGELES.CA McLEAN.VA NEWYORK,NY ROCKVILLE,MD

\\\DC· 65111/0015· 1573865v2

"Affillami Offict
HOGAN & HARTSON L.L.P.

David L. Bennett, Esq.

Federal Aviation Administration

August 6, 2002

Page 2

ultimately will result in significant harm, not only to the airspace in the Greater

Los Angeles Area, but also to the National Airspace System.

1. Santa Monica Airport's Proposed Aircraft Ban.

As we understand it, the Airport is proposing that the Santa Monica

City Council enact an ordinance that would establish an Aircraft Conformance

Program that prohibits any aircraft with a wingspan of more than 79 feet or a

minimum approach speed of 121 knots or more from operating at the Airport. II To

enforce this program, the Airport has recommended that the ordinance include both

civil and criminal penalties. After a six-month grace period during which the

Airport would attempt to notify the aviation community of the new Aircraft

Conformance Program, the ordinance would impose on the pilot or aircraft operator

civil penalties of up to $10,000. 'lJ The Airport's memoranda on this subject do not

describe what sort of prison sentence might be imposed on pilots or aircraft

operators who violate the Aircraft Conformance Program. 'QI

The Airport appears to be asserting two justifications for the Santa

Monica City Council to enact such an ordinance. First, the Airport suggests that

restricting the operations of the larger and faster aircraft would be consistent with

the Airport's layout and airport reference code ("ARC")of B-II and would "create the

appropriate and safe operating conditions for the Airport." 1/ However, as Herman

Bliss, the Manager of the Airports Division in the FAA's Western-Pacific Region,

noted recently in a letter to the Director of the Santa Monica Airport, an airport's

ARC "cannot be used and is not intended to limit airport operations." fl.1

Furthermore, contrary to what the Airport seems to suggest, it is "not inherently

unsafe for an aircraft of a larger design category to utilize an airport that has been

designed to accommodate a lesser design category of aircraft." fil Second, the

Airport suggests that the creation of the Aircraft Conformance Program will create

1/ Memorandum from the Airport Staff to the Airport Commission, dated May 20, 2002, at 5

(Attachment 1); Memorandum from the Airport Staff to the Airport Commission, dated July 22,

2002, at 2-3 & 5-6 (Attachment 2).

2/ Attachment 2 at 3-5.

'J/ Cf. id.

:1/ Attachment 1at 3 (see the last sentence of the third unnumbered paragraph).

fl./ Letter from Herman Bliss to Jeff Mathieu, dated July 22, 2002 (Attachment 3).

!i/ rd.

\ \ \DC - 6511110015 - 1573865 v2
HOGAN & HARTsON L.L.P.

David 1. Bennett, Esq.

Federal Aviation Administration

August 6, 2002

Page 3

"the optimum compatibility with the area surrounding [the] Airport." 1/ This

appears to be little more than a thinly disguised acknowledgement that the

community surrounding the Airport would just like to get rid of as many aircraft

operations at the Airport as possible, and that the Airport intends to accommodate

that desire.

2. The Proposed Aircraft Ban Is Inconsistent with the City's Legal

Obligations.

As Mr. Bliss indicated in his recent letter, ~/ the City of Santa Monica

is subject to several legal requirements that limit its authority with respect to the

Airport and that would be violated if the City persists in establishing the Aircraft

Conformance Program.

First, the Instrument of Transfer that conveyed to the City of Santa

Monica title to the Airport property requires the City to use the Airport "for public

airport purposes for the use and benefit of the public, on reasonable terms and

without unjust discrimination and without grant or exercise of any exclusive right

for use of the airport." f)j If the City of Santa Monica enacts the proposed Aircraft

Conformance Program in an attempt to exclude larger and faster categories of

aircraft from its Airport, the City would violate this requirement of the Instrument

of Transfer. It would be unjustly discriminating against a class of aeronautical

operations because its Aircraft Conformance Program is designed to arbitrarily

single out a specific class of aircraft for exclusion from the Airport, while allowing

others to continue using the public airport facilities.

Second, as a condition to receiving certain federal grant monies for its

Airport, the City of Santa Monica has agreed to abide by federal airport sponsor

grant assurances. In relevant part, these assurances parallel the City's obligations

under the Instrument of Transfer and impose on it an obligation to make the

airport available for public use on fair and reasonable terms and without unjust

discrimination. 10/ Thus, enactment of the Aircraft Conformance Program would

11 Attachment 1 at 3 (see the last sentence ofthe third unnumbered paragraph).

f11 Attachment 3.

fl.1 See Instrument of Transfer, dated August 10, 1948, at 4. A copy of this instrument is included

in a package ofland record documents pertaining to the Santa Monica Airport, which are being

provided as Attachment 4.

101 See Airport Sponsor Grant Assurance No. 22 ("EconomicNondiscrimination").

"\DC - 6511110015 - 1573865 v2
HOGAN & HARTsON L.L.P.

David L. Bennett, Esq.

Federal Aviation Administration

August 6, 2002

Page 4

violate these grant assurances, just as it would violate the terms of the Instrument

of Transfer.

Third, the City of Santa Monica entered into an agreement with the

FAA in 1984 (the "1984 Agreement") to settle a number of disputes relating to the

City's attempt in the early 1980s to ban jet-powered aircraft from the Airport. ill

The material terms ofthe 1984 Agreement include the City's obligation to "operate

and maintain the Airport as a viable functioning facility without derogation of its

role as a general aviation reliever airport ... until July 1, 2015." 121 The City

would violate this material term of the 1984 Agreement if it enacts the Aircraft

Conformance Program, because that action would severely impair the Airport's

usefulness as a general aviation reliever airport for the Greater Los Angeles Area.

The enactment of the Aircraft Conformance Program would force aircraft operators

to use other neighboring airports instead of Santa Monica and would impose

significant new burdens on those other facilities.

Fourth, any restrictions that the City of Santa Monica would seek to

impose on the operation of Stage 3 aircraft are subject to the requirements of Part

161 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 131 Under Subpart D of these regulations,

any airport that proposes a new access restriction on Stage 3 aircraft must, among

other things:

a. Give public notice of the proposed restriction;

b. Give interested parties an opportunity to comment;

c. Prepare and make available for public comment an analysis that

shows that the proposed restriction complies with relevant statutory

conditions; and

d. Submit the proposed restriction to the FAA for its review and approval.

So far as we can tell, the City of Santa Monica has not even begun this process, let

alone received FAA approval to ban any Stage 3 aircraft from the Airport, as the

Aircraft Conformance Program would do.

III Santa Monica Airport Agreement, executed on January 31, 1984 (Attachment 5).

121 rd. § 8 ("Commitment to Operate Airport"); id. § 7(a) (identifying section 8 as a material term of

the 1984Agreement).

131 14 C.F.R. Part 161.

\ \ \DC· 65111/0015·1573865 v2
HOGAN & HARTSON L.L.P.

David L. Bennett, Esq.

Federal Aviation Administration

August 6, 2002

Page 5

3. The FAA Must Take Immediate Action To Prevent the City of Santa

Monica from Banning Aircraft from the Airport.

Last year alone, approximately 147,869 aircraft operations (including

landings and takeoffs) were performed at Santa Monica Airport. 14/ About 13,252,

or 8.97%, of these operations were by jet-powered aircraft. 15/ We believe that a

majority of the jet operations involved aircraft that would be excluded from the

Airport under the proposed Aircraft Conformance Program, including several types

of Cessna Citation, Dassault Falcon, Gulfstream, and Raytheon Hawker business

jet aircraft.

If the FAA does not intervene to prevent the City of Santa Monica from

enacting and implementing the proposed Aircraft Conformance Program, operations

involving the prohibited types of aircraft will have to be moved to other airports in

the Greater Los Angeles Area, including the already crowded Los Angeles

International, Long Beach, Burbank, and Van Nuys airports. This would have

several undesirable results:

a. It would impose a significant inconvenience on individuals desiring to

travel to or from Santa Monica or adjacent communities because they

may be forced to land at more remote airports and travel further by

ground to reach their ultimate destinations.

b. It would generate considerable new burdens for the neighboring

airports, resulting in additional airspace congestion, increased overall

noise levels, and heavier utilization of the ground transportation

facilities at the airports.

c. It would create a dangerous precedent, which ifleft unchecked could

lead hundreds of other reliever airports across the United States to

impose similar restrictions on aircraft operations based on the

supposed incompatibility of the operations with each airport's ARC. If

these airports were to follow Santa Monica's lead, an enormous

number of aircraft operations could be forced to move from reliever

airports to larger commercial airports, causing more airspace

14/ Santa Monica Airport Noise Abatement Program - Calendar Year 2001 Annual Report at 5

(Attachment 6).

15/ Id.

\\\DC· 65111/0015· 1573865v2
HOGAN & HARTsON L.L.P.

David L. Bennett, Esq.

Federal Aviation Administration

August 6, 2002

Page 6

congestion problems in many cities and significantly harming the

National Airspace System.

On behalf of our client, NetJets, Inc., we strongly urge the FAA to

immediately take whatever enforcement or remedial actions are necessary to

prevent the City of Santa Monica from imposing the Aircraft Conformance Program

on the aviation community. Because the Airport's proposed actions would have

such a detrimental impact on both the Greater Los Angeles Area and the National

Airspace System, the FAA cannot afford to take a wait-and-see approach in this

matter. Indeed, if the City of Santa Monica proves unwilling to reconsider its plans

to ban aircraft from its Airport, this is the type of case where the FAA should assert

the U.S. Government's reversionary interest in the Airport property 16/ and make it

absolutely clear that the City will not be permitted to carry out its proposed Aircraft

Conformance Program.

Thank you for your consideration of this letter. Please call us if you

have any questions.

Sincerely,

~'P~

E. Tazewell Ellett

Ronald P. Brower

Counsel for NetJets, Inc.

Attachments

16/ See Attachment 4 at 6.

\ \ \DC . 6511 !IDOlS· 1573865 v2
~AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION

lOlA

421 Aviation Way • Frederick, MD 21701-4798

Telephone (301) 695-2000 • FAX (301) 695-2375

www.oopo.orq

August 2, 2002

The Honorable Michael Feinstein

Mayor

City of Santa Monica

City Council Office #2QO

P. O. Office 2200

Santa Monica, CA 90407-2200

Dear Mayor,

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) is a nonprofit membership

association consisting of over 385,000 pilots and aircraft owners nationwide, over 48,143

whom reside in the state of California. A number of our members regularly make use of

the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). AOP A is committed to ensuring the continued

viability, Iglfo:wth;lant!lde?cl.opment'of·aviation and airports in California and the United

Ststes;

It iSIii'ur'1lIlUerstanding(thaUh.e city coaacil.wilhsoon considenthe.implementation of

measures that.will-effectively restrict aooess.te the.airport p~ on.~ip~d~sign criteria

issuedby the: Federal-A via'tion A<:lnJ#1i.s4'ati.on{I(.4\A1an4;airg~ft, approach speeds, .,:

AOPA is strongly.opposed.to.seca aqti~Bi~eit4elimpl~fUionof!any,airpo!t

restriction lissolely;~ithin tl!repurvjewroft~ EM @dr~tJthl{«?i~y,/ The~ut,h9rity of the

FAA'in this area!iS1wellidocumented ine.number 'Of federal CQ~ntJ casesu (

On July 22,2002, the Santa Monica Airport Commission discussed an airport staffreport

(agenda item 7b) that outlined implementation of an Airport Conformance Program '

(ACP) based on 3.1"1 FAA airport classification ofB-II. The program discussed included

certain enforcement measures that include assessment of civil fines as well as criminal

prosecution for repeat violations of the ACP.

It would appear that SMO's~affhave baaed.theirrecoarmendatioas.on the patently false

assumption that the FAA,:AiirportDesi~4\d:vis9ry €irowaJi~AC)tA.C 150/15300-13

Change 6 is areguiatory clo~unn~~;,~t 1Siootr: A~tv:isoti}1,em,qlll~~are.just that; advisory.

The design criteria and. airport classifications-defined w;jthin.53BQ .•~3,are,q~m~ficial in

airport planning as well as project funding requirements,' However, th~ACis not ',Wi ,.

designed arc should net be used as a means to restrict access to any airport. Aircraft

operations at an airport by aircraft outside a specific airport design grouping are not

inherently unsafe. In fact, many of the aircraft that would be impacted by the ACP have

been operating safely at SMa for many years.

Member of Intemational Council ofAircraft Owner and Pilot Associations
The Honorable Michael Feinstein

Page 2

August 2, 2002

No doubt at least a portion ofthe effort to restrict aircraft operations at the airport is

driven by noise concerns in the community surrounding the airport. However, the

aircraft impacted by these restrictions are some of the quietest aircraft in today's fleet.

We also believe that moving forward with the ACP and associated restrictions would not

be consistent with existing federal law as codified in 14 Code of Federal Aviation

Regulations Part 161 - better known as the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990

(ANCA). The law provides a very specific process that must be followed before any

access restrictions to a publicly funded airport may be put in place. Santa Monica Airport

has not yet met the requirements of Part 161.

.'

Additionally, we believe that restricting operations at the airport based on the design

category of the airport would not be consistent with the City's federal obligations to

provide airport access to the public on reasonable terms without unjust discrimination.

Approving and implementing the ACP program would place the city in non-compliance

with these federal obligations and could have significant legal and financial ramifications

on the city.

'"

AOP A appreciates your taking into consideration our comments. We hope that we have

provided information useful in your decision-making and that you will abandon this illconceived attempt to restrict public access to Santa Monica Airport.

Cc: all council members

City Manager, Susan McCarthy

FAA~Director of Airports Safety and Standards
07/23102 TUE 14:35 FAX 202 331 8364 NBAA

l4J002

1200 EIGHTEENTH STREET NW. SlJITE 400

WASHINGTON. DC 20036-2527

TEL: (202) 783-9000 • FAX: (202) 331-8364

E-MAIL: info@nbaa.org • Wr::B: www.nbaa.org

July 22, 2002

Todd Cleary

Chairman, Airport Commission

Santa Monica Airport

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South

Santa Monica, CA 90405

Re: Proposed Enforcement of 8-11Aircraft Conformance Program

Dear Chairman Cleary:

The National Business Aviation Association, Inc. (NBAA) 1has just learned

that tonight the Commission will consider recommending to the City Council that

all aircraft exceeding the FAA's "8-11"design criterion be banned from operating

at the Airport. NBAA strongly opposes such a recommendation, which would be

both unwise and unlawful.

NBAA objects to the lack of notice in this process. This issue first came

up in a staff memorandum dated May 20,2002. In that memorandum, the staff

urged "that the Airport Commission thoughtfully consider" the issue before

making a recommendation to the City Council. If there has been such

consideration, it has not been in a public forum.

As for the substance, the proposed ban on the operation of Stage 2 and

Stage 3 aircraft would violate the Airport Noise and Capacity Act, 49 U.S.C.

§ §47521 et seq. and 14 C.F.R. Part 161. Moreover, it also would violate the

terms of the 1984 Settlement Agreement, terms that "shall not be altered without

the mutual consent of the parties," Id. §7.

Although the staff memorandum dances around the subject, it is clear that

the operation of larger aircraft at the airport does not raise a safety issue - and

has not raised a safety issue for the more than a decade that such aircraft have

been operated to and from the Airport. Since all aircraft are required to meet the

95 dB SENEL standard. the operation of such aircraft does not raise a noise

I NBAA represents approximately 7,200 member companies which own and

operate approximately 9,300 general aviation aircraft to facilitate the conduct of

their businesses or which are otherwise involved with business aviation. NBAA

members comprise a substantial segment of the general aviation community.

NBAA acts as a spokesperson for business aviation before government agencies

and the U.S. Congress.

meorbe< of ~ lUetrotlonal b.••ln<>ss aviation ,-OU'lClI, Ird.
Oi/23/02 TVE 14:35 FAX 202 331 8364 NBAA

I4J 003

issue. The proposed action is no more than an attempt to ban larger aircraft, and

probably all jets, from the Airport, more on grounds of perception than reality.

Santa Monica is an important airport for our members, and an important

part of our national air transportation system. We all have to work together to

assure that access to the system is not unreasonably curtailed. At the same

time, the users of an airport have to be good neighbors. NBAA has taken a lead

role in both preserving access and creating an aviation community that is a good

neighbor. We want to continue to do so at Santa Monica. but proposals such as

the one before you tonight are contrary to that spirit.

We urge you and the other members of the Commission to reject the staff

recommendation -

Respectfully,
U.S Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

Western-Pacific Region

Airports Division

Federal Aviation Administration

P.O. Box 92007

Los Angeles. CA 90009-2007

July 22, 2002

Mr. Jeff Mathieu, Airport Director

Airport Administration Building

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South

Santa Monica, CA 90405

Dear Mr. Mathieu:

Santa Monica Airport Commission Agenda Item 7(b), Proposed

Enforcementof a B-II Aircraft Conformance Program

It has recently corne to the attention of the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) that the Santa Monica Airport (SMO) staff will be

recommending that the Santa Monica City Council implement, by

ordinance, an Aircraft Conformance Program (ACP) at SMO. We understand

that the ACP to be recommended to the City Council would restrict

operations at SMO to aircraft that meet the standards for an airport

with an Airport Reference Code (ARC) designation of B-II.

Before making such a determination, you should be aware that the ARC

design category of an airport cannot be used and is not intended to

limit airport operations. While the design category and geometry of an

airport are useful in airport planning, the FAA does not consider it

inherently unsafe for an aircraft of a larger design category to

utilize an airport that has been designed to accommodate a lesser

design category of aircraft.

Instrument approach charts published by the FAA for SMO indicate that

there are instrument approach procedures for the airport up to Category

D aircraft. For operatio~ under visual flight rules, the safety of an

aircraft operation is determined by the pilot. Ultimately, it is the

responsibility of the FAA to determine the safety of a category of

flight operations or an individual flight. In addition, SMO staff

should consider the requirements that apply to new restrictions on

airport noise and access under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act,

codified at 49 U.S.C. § 47521, et. seq., as implemented by 14 CFR Part

161.

Accordingly, restricting aircraft operations based on the design

category of SMO would not be consistent with the City's Federal

obligations to provide airport access to the public on reasonable terms

and without unjust discrimination, or with the City's 1984 settlement

agreement with the FAA and other parties. The FAA strongly recommends

that the airport defer any further action regarding the ACP pending

further review and comment by the FAA.
Mr. Ellsworth Chan will be contacting you shortly to further discuss

this issue. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call

Mr. Chan at (310) 725-3620.

Sincerely,

ORIGINAL SIGNED-BY

HERMAN C. BLISS

Herman C. Bl iss

Manager, Airports Division

cc:

Mr. Robert D. Trimborn, Airport Manager

Mr. Todd Cleary, Chairman, Airport Commission

Mr. John Joyce, Vice-Chairman, Airport Commission

Mr. David Kaplan, Airport Commissioner

Mr. Jean Gebman, Airport Commissioner

Mr. John A. Smith, Airport Commissioner
Report of Meeting: Santa Monica Airport Commission

Santa Monica City Council Chamber

1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401

Date and Time: July 22, 2002 7:30 PM

Subject: Proposed enforcement of a B-II Aircraft Conformance Program (ACP) in

response to the results of the Santa Monica Airport Design Standards Analysis and

Recommended Remedies

Discussion: Robert Trimborn, Airport Manager, served as the presenter of and

advocate for the ACP to the Commissioners. Mr. Trimborn stated that ACP did not

represent a change to the terms of the 1984 Agreement. He claimed that ACP is based on

safety and, therefore, is justified to make the airport safe. He stated that the airport is

designed for B-II aircraft and the airport cannot be redesigned for larger category aircraft

because the airport cannot be enlarged. Mr. Trimborn stated that he has communicated

with Herman Bliss, AWP-600 and Bill Withycombe, AWP-1, about this matter.

The following is a sampling of comments by the commissioners:

-Conditions today are different from the conditions that existed in 1984 so ACP may be

justified to address our concerns today.

-The city of Santa Monica has a duty to take action to ensure safety and promote the

common good of its residents even if it means taking a risk.

-The FAA is a reactive agency and only responds to airport demands when provoked to

react.

-There is a risk that the 1984 agreement might be terminated if the dispute over ACP

somehow undermines the agreement. The city might lose the protections that the

agreement provides to the city.

-Paralysis by analysis might cause the city to do nothing instead of aggressively seeking

to resolve the noise and safety problems.

-The letter dated 7/22/02 from AWP-600 to the Santa Monica Airport Director was read

into the record.

Nine speakers addressed the Commissioners regarding ACP:

-Four were in favor, including Trimborn. It appears that three were local residents.

-Four were against ACP.

-One advised more study to make sure that ACP would not result in adverse

consequences for the city.

The motion passed with all 4 Commissioners present voting in favor of ACP:

John Smith, John Joyce, David Kaplan, Jean Gebman (Todd Cleary-absent)

Prepared by: Tony Garcia, AW

Date: July 23,2002
JULY 23,2002 AWP-620/-621 RECORD OF PHONE DISCUSSION

WITH

CAPTAIN JOHN JOYCE (RETIRED), VICE CHAIRMAN

SANTA MONICA AIRPORT (SMO) COMMISSION

10:35 PDT

SUBJECT: SMO AIRPORT COMMISSION ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED

AIRCRAFT CONFORMANCE PROGRAM (ACP)(AGENDA ITEM 7b)

PRESENTED BY THE AIRPORT STAFF AT THE JULY 22,2002 COMMISSION

MEETING.

• Mr. John Joyce is a retired B-747 United Airlines Captain, who chaired the

subject meeting, due to the absence of the chairman.

• Captain Joyce:

• Confirmed the commission's receipt ofthe FAA's July 22,2002, letter. [AWP620.1 stated that during the meeting, the letter was read into the record by one of

the commissioners.]

• Indicated the four commissioners present voted unanimously to adopt the ACP

Airport Staff recommendation to send it to the city council for consideration.

Captain Joyce indicated that he had reservation about voting in favor of the

recommendation, but decided it would facilitate moving it to the city council for

consideration. Mentioned that further airport staff work would be initiated to

prepare for the city council meeting:

• Did not know when the APC would be placed on the city council agenda.

• Desired a copy of the complete copy of the airport staff ACP report.

• Stated that the Airport Manager, {Robert Trimborn} and the airport consultant

(Coffman and Associates) had prior discussions with the FAA, on this subject.

• Requested a copy of AC 150/5300-13, and the FAA Order of Runway Safety

Area Determinations. Captain Joyce was given the FAA Internet address for

obtaining the circulars and AWP-621 will mail a copy of each document.

• Stated that he did not know where the $500.00 noise violation fines were

deposited. He hoped such funds were deposited in the airport enterprise fund.

• Did not know whether SMO had ever collected the civil fine that have been issued

today, nor does he know how the proposed ACP fines would be imposed and

collected.

• Intimated that the commission did not appear to have a thorough understanding of

the ACP provisions.

• Spoke about the 1984 agreement provision that permits a l-year test period for a

displaced threshold to determine aircraft noise impact. [AWP-62 1 stated that the

test period, based on a-1985 airport staff document indicated that the displaced

threshold test caused a unfavorable shift in airport noise, and was no longer

pursued.]

• Stated that SMO FBOs spoke at the meeting about the potential economic impact

the ACP would have on their business volume and income.
• Stated that the number of based and transient aircraft that would be subject to

ACP fines was not fully disclosed to the commissioners, but the Gulfstream-4s

would be subject to violations.

• Asked what pending actions FAA take concerning the ACP. [AWP-620 indicated

that FAA headquarters, with general counsel's involvement, would most likely

initiate a Letter of Investigation.]

• [AWP-621 .and AWP-620 were not aware of any discussions between Mr.

Trimborn and FAA addressing the ACP. AWP-621 was not aware of any prior

meeting between SMO and Airports Division staff to discuss the ACP proposal.

The discussions pertained to runway safety area, runway length, and displaced

threshold issues.]

• [Information from the city website indicated that the council meets on the 2

nd and

4

th Tuesdays, starting at 17:45 local for the consent calendar and 16:45 local for

the public portion of the meeting (Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa

Monica, CA).]

• [The July 23,2002 council agenda (attached) did not include the ACP issue.

• The next council meeting will be held on August 13 and subsequently August 27,

2002.]

• [AWP-620/-621 emphasized the content ofthe July 22, 2002 letter pertaining to

FAA's safety determination on the safety of the types and classes of aircraft

operations at SMO, as well as the Santa Monica's federal obligation to preclude

non-discriminatory exclusion of aircraft. We stated that just discrimination could

be based on aviation safety, if the flight standards district office can determine

that specific aircraft operations at SMO are unsafe.]

• [Captain Joyce appeared to understand the FAA's position, concerning the aircraft

safety and discrimination issues set forth by the July 22, 2002 letter and our

elaboration of the subject during this discussion.]

• AWP-620.1 was not available during this period to join in the discussion with

Captain Joyce.

• The discussion with Captain John Joyce ended at 10:57 PDT on July 23, 2002.

Ellsworth L. Chan, AWP-620 John Milligan, AWP-621

Smojoyce723

2
Cc f-l f L.IA.<J'os: F, as

I

S Hp . S.WT/\. U~~ 1(.

u.s Department

of Transportation

Western-Pacific Region

Regional Administrator

P.O. Box 92007

Worldway post:~;;~=

Los Angeles, C~

Federal Aviation

Administration

/J1 I

v

DEC 18

~s. JoniJacobson

13136 Dewey Street

Los Angeles, CA 90066

Dear ~s. Jacobson:

Administrator Garvey has asked me to respond to your letter, dated August 7, 2000,

concerning safety issues at the Santa Monica Airport. In your letter, you inquire as to the

criteria that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) uses to consider Santa Monica

Airport to be a safe airport.

CES

FlOliTlNG SYMBOL __

621

INmAlS'SIGNATURE

JPM

DATE

12/8/00

ROUTING SYMBOL

620A

INmALStSIGNA TU~E

MM\J

DA'f2/8/00

ROUTING SYMBOL

620

INfTlALSlSIGNATUAE

ELC

DATf-2/8/00

ROliTlNG SYMBOL

610 Santa Monica Airport serves to accommodate general aviation aircraft. It supports law

enforcement, business aviation, and air ambulance, among other roles. Designated as a

reliever airport, it is intended to reduce congestion at large commercial service airports by 1-----,--....-

providing general aviation pilots with alternative landing areas.

You cite that conditions have changed dramatically at the airport since 1984, the year the

city of Santa Monica and the FAA entered into the airport agreement. First, you indicate

that there has been an "enormous increase in air traffic since 1984." In fact, our records

indicate that there were a total of204,032 airport operations counted in 1984 and a total

of213,222 operations in 1998 (the latest year for which totals have been confirmed by

the FAA). This is a total increase in operations of9,190 operations per year. We also

note that the 1998 figure is down from a peak of over 240,000 operations in 1992.

Second, you state that smaller aircraft are being replaced by jet aircraft. While FAA does I---'"""-=---

not collect data on jet/piston power fleet mix operations, one can observe a general trend

at general aviation airports toward business and private jet traffic. Jet operators use

general aviation airports to avoid congested commercial service airports and to operate

from an airport close to their home base.

The 1984 Airport Agreement (Agreement) is the result of litigation regarding a series of

disputes at the airport. The Agreement was reached only after extensive involvement of

the airport users, neighbors, and the Airport Working Group, and strikes a balance

between the recognition of legal rights and the interests of those parties.

Runway safety area dimensional standards have increased over the years, subsequent to

the construction of Santa Monica Airport. It has been difficult for many existing airports

to expand to conform to the revised standards, due to physical and economic constraints.

The FAA has no authority to require a change in runway length to achieve current

runway safety area standards at airports. Likewise, the FAA has no authority to require

the acquisition of additional real property to achieve current runway safety area and

FAA Form 1360-14.1 (6-89) OFFICIAL FILE COpy • uS.GPO 1990-0- 768-012/20101

ROUTING SYMBOL

600

ROUTiNG SYMBOL

600A

INlnAlS'SIGNATUAE

DATE
runway protection zone standards. The FAA certainly recommends attainment of

standard runway safety areas and protection zones, and in many cases responds to federal

funding requests to achieve this objective where feasible. The airport operator is

responsible for determining the feasibility of such safety enhancements.

The runway safety area is considered a safety enhancement that is beneficial if something

abnormal occurs during the takeoff or landing. However, an airport with safety areas

which do not meet current FAA design standards is not inherently unsafe. Prior to

conducting an aircraft operation on a runway, a pilot is responsible for determining that

the runway length and width is sufficient for safe aircraft operations. The presence or

absence of a runway safety area is not part ofthis determination.

We trust the above information is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions,

please contact Herman Bliss, Manager, Airports Division, at (310) 725-3600.

Sincerely,

Original Signed by

William C. Withycombe

William C. Withycombe

Regional Administrator

cc: Robert Trimbom, Santa Monica Airport Manager

AWP-I, AWP-600A, AWP-620A, ARP-I, AAS-I, AAS-400

File: AWP-600 Congressional File

A: John's Disk 1, AWPISM02

AWP-62 1: JPMilligan:X3621 :mmw: 12/8/00
U.S.Department

of Tronsportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

Office of Airport Safety and

Standards

800 Independence Ave .• SW.

Washington, DC 20591

DEC I I zm

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Waxman:

Several weeks ago representatives of my staff and the Federal Aviation

Administration's (FAA) Office of Chief Counsel met with your staff to discuss

noise and safety concerns at the Santa Monica Airport (SMA). While no

consensus of the issues was reached, I was pleased to hear that our offices

agreed to work cooperatively in determining the specific issues of concern and

any potential solutions.

During the meeting, your staff requested that the FAA provide answers to

several questions. Our responses to those questions are provided below.

1. Could the City of Santa Monica reduce the 1984 Settlement Agreement

noise levels from 95 to 80 through a streamlined ANCNPart 161 process?

The 1984 Settlement Agreement, which includes a 95 db maximum SENEL

noise limit, does not appear to be currently subject to the Airport Noise and

Capacity Act (ANCA), 49 U.S.C. 47524, et seq., 14 C.F.R. Part 161, because it

became effective on or before October 1, 1990. However, if the Agreement

were amended and the amendment had the effect of reducing or limiting aircraft

operations or affecting aircraft safety, then the Settlement Agreement would

become subject to ANCA. The amended Settlement Agreement would

constitute a new restriction under ANCA and Part 161.

There are no formal streamlined ANCA procedures, however, voluntary

agreements between the airport operator and airport users are outside the

scope bfANCA. Thus, these non-mandatory agreements would require no

ANCA process or documentation. In addition, under Subpart B of 14 C.F.R.

Part 161, there is an expedited ANCA process that applies to agreements

.' between the airport operator and all aircraft operators affected by the proposed

restriction that are serving or will serve the airport within 180 days of the date of

the proposed restriction. After notice and comment, the restriction would
2

become mandatory and would have the same effect as if it had been

implemented in accordance with Part 161's Subpart 0, "Notice, Review, and

Approval Requirements for Stage 3 Restrictions."

2. What minimal submissions would be required to be prepared?

For voluntary agreements, no submissions to the FAA would be required. For

agreements pursuant to Subpart B, certain limited information would have to be

placed in the notice such as a clear and concise description of the proposed

restriction, and information concerning the specific need for the restriction.

3. Would such an amendment to the Settlement Agreement likely trigger

ANCNPart 161?

Any alteration or amendment to the 1984 Settlement Agreement not constituting

a voluntary agreement or agreement under Subpart B that would have the

effect of reducing or limiting aircraft operations or affect aircraft safety would

subject the Settlement Agreement to the requirements of ANCA and Part 161.

4. Would the fact that the Settlement Agreement may be grandfathered under

ANCNPart 161 reduce the amount of paperwork and process necessary for

reducing the noise level at Santa Monica Airport by amending the

Settlement .6.greement?

Assuming the Settlement Agreement was grandfathered under ANCA, any

amendment to the Settlement Agreement that would have the effect of reducing

or limiting aircraft operations or affect aircraft safety would subject the

Settlement Agreement to the requirements of ANCA and Part 161, including the

analysis requirements of Subpart D. As indicated above, only in the case of a

voluntary agreement or an agreement under Subpart B would reduce or

eliminate paperwork and process under ANCA and Part 161.

5. What kind of data could the City of Santa Monica or homeowners residing

close to SMA provide to FAA to demonstrate a safety problem?

Information showing Accidents/Incidents where the Santa Monica Airport or an

elementof the airport infrastructure was a cause or contributing factor.

6. When was the last FAA safety inspection of SMA completed?

~.

.. Since SMA is not a Part 139 "certificated" airport, the FAA does not conduct

routine safety inspections of SMA. However, California Department of

Transportation (CAL TRANS), Aeronautics Program conducted an aviation
3

facilities inventory and state permit compliance inspection on

November 3D, 1999. Please contact Mr. Austin Wiswell, CALTRANS, at

(916) 653-9603 for additional information regarding this inspection.

7. How often are such safety inspections completed?

CALTRANS inspections are typically, but not always, completed annually .

....-8. Why is it that the Runway Safety Areas and Runway Protection Zones

are nonstandard?

Runway Safety Area and Runway Protection Zone dimensional standards have

increased over the years, subsequent to the establishment of Santa Monica

Airport in 1926. It has been difficult for many existing airports to expand to

conform to the revised standards, due to physical and economic constraints.

The FAA has no authority to require a change in runway length to achieve

current Runway Safety Area standards at airports. Likewise, the FAA has no

authority to require the acquisition of additional real property to achieve current

runway safety area and runway protection zone standards. The FAA certainly

recommends attainment of standard runway safety areas and protection zones,

and responds to federal funding requests to achieve this objective where

f~~sibleo

The Runway Safety Area is considered a safety enhancement that is beneficial

if something abnormal occurs to an aircraft during the takeoff or landing.

However, an airport having runway safety areas that are not consistent with

current FAA design standards does not make it inherently unsafe. Prior to

conducting an aircraft operation on a runway, the pilot is responsible for

determining whether the runway length and width are sufficient for safe aircraft

operations. The presence or absence of a runway safety area is not part of this

determination. . .

v 9.' Why doesn't the FAA require the reduction of the runway's length

to accommodate safer buffer areas?

See response to question 8 above. Additionally, the 1984 Settlement

Agreement, which resolved litigation between the city and airport users,

specifically states that runway length will remain and the city will not take any

action to derogate the airport's role as a reliever airport. A reduction of runway

length would be considered a derogation of the airport's role as a reliever

airport and would impact its current utilization. .
4

1O.lf SMA would be safer with a shorter runway, why doesn't the FAA require

that?

See response to question 8 above.

11. Does FAA maintain measurements of aircraft emissions, soot, or pollution

at SMA?

The FAA does not monitor airborne emissions, generated and dispersed by an

individual airport.

I trust that this information is helpful. Enclosed is a copy of FAA Advisory

Circular 150/5300.13A, "Airport Design," as requested by your staff.

If you or your staff need further assistance or wish to meet to further discuss

this matter, please contact Ms. Suzanne Sullivan, Assistant Administrator for

Government and Industry Affairs, at (202) 267-3277.

Sincerely.

David L. Bennett

Director, Office of Airport Safety

and Standards

Enclosure

-:

RECEIVEO-'--'

CEel 5 2000

AIRPORTS DIVISiON""

AWP·610 ---'-"'-""~".
HWI-'l 7 RGI-l

NO. 553

i 0

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

\'Ve:ltem-PacifIC Region

Regional Administrator

P.O. Box 92Q07

Worldloltay Pastal Center

Los Angeles, CA 90009

OPTIONAL FOAM 99 (HO)

.u I· 9 am To

FAX TRANSMITTAL

Phone •

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

Member, United States House of

Representatives

2204 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515·0529

NSN7540-ll1-317-7:l66 5099-101' GtN5RAL SERViCESADMINISTRATON

Dear Mr. Waxman:

Thank you for your letter of May 26, 2000, on behalf of your constituents who reside

near the Santa Monica Airport, Santa Monica, California. You expressed concerns

regarding environmental and safety issues at the Santa Monica Airport.

The city of Santa Monica (city) is primarily responsible for the planning and

implementation of actions designed to reduce the affect of noise and other environmental

factors on the communities surrounding the Santa Monica Airport. The Federal Aviation

Administration's (FAA) primary mission is to ensure the safe and efficient use of

navigable airspace.

On January 31, 1984, the city and the FAA executed an agreement that addressed a

number of disputes and litigation concerning aircraft noise impacts on the community and

access restrictions at Santa Monica Airport. The FAA negotiated the specific terms of

the 1984 Agreement to assist the city in responding to airport noise issues. The 1984

Agreement describes the specific points of agreement between the city and the FAA and

provides a format within which issues arising in the future can be addressed and resolved.

The 1984 Agreement remains in effect until July 1,2015. Within the context oftbe

FAA's mission and the 1984 Agreement, the FAA will continue to work with the city to

address aviation environmental and safety issues.

The FAA considers the Santa Monica Airport to be a safe airport facility. The existing

facilities can safely accommodate a large percentage of corporate jet aircraft in the civil

aviation fleet. Some aircraft) however, may not be able to operate at their maximum

takeoff weight. The pilot-ln-comrnand of each aircraft is responsible for ensuring that the

airport facilities are adequate to accommodate the operation.
12:55 RWP1 ~ RGI-1 NO. 553

You. requested the FAA evaluate two specific recommendations.

l. The FAA should designate 1,000 feet of the existing runway as a runway safety

area, similar to the runway safety areas required for new runways. By reducing the

length of the runway to only 4,000 feet for flight planning and purposes, this would

effectively set stricter safety guidelines for the types of aircraft that can be used at

the airport.

The FAA has no authority to require the extension of the runway safety area at

Santa Monica Airport. The 1984 Agreement states that "the city will operate and

maintain the airport as a viable functioning facility without derogation of its role as a

general aviation reliever airport ... or its capacity in terms of runway length and width,

taxiway system, and runway weight bearing strength until July 1,2015." A reduction of

the runway length to 4,000 feet would restrict the ability of certain types of aircraft to

operate at the airport and would be contrary to the city's commitment under the

Agreement.

2. With respect to nighttime noise problems, the FAA should institute an 80 dB

maximum noise limit on all arriving aircraft during the established departure

curfew hours from 11:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, and from 11:00 p.m.

until 8:00 a.m. on weekends.

The FAA has no authority to establish such a noise limit. The establishment of nighttime

arrival noise level restrictions by the city is not permitted by the material terms of the

1984 Agreement. The Agreement specifically prohibits the takeoff of aircraft between

the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday and between 11;00 p.m,

and 8:00 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday. The Agreement specifically states "This

regulation is included as a material term of this Agreement and is expected to remain in

effect. It is agreed that it will not be amended or modified without prior agreement oftb.e

parties." Any new or revised noise and access restrictions, applicable to operations by

Stage 2 and 3 aircraft, must be established in accordance with the requirements of the

Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANeA), as implemented by 14 Code of Federal

Regulations, Part 161s Airport Noise and Access Restrictions.

We trust that this response will clarify the role and authority of the FAA regarding these

issues. If you or your staff need further assistance, please contact Mr. Herman C. Bliss,

Manager, Airports Division, at (310) 725-3600.

Sincerely,

r.J",fI.~Q. W~~

William C. Withycombe

Regional Administrator

Enclosure

Transmitted Correspondence
Santa Monica Airport

Office of Airport Manager

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South

Suite 3

Santa Monica, California 90405-3295

<'-0 Ml'l.ltAN C~ F'I.-l

SAJ<.l,A jV..I:, rI.j :..:.v"\

City of

San t a III 0 11ic a"

July 10, 2000

Mr. John Milligan

Supervisor Standards Section AWP-621

Federal Aviation Administration

Western-Pacific Region Airports Division

P.O. Box 92007 WWPC

Los Ar.geles, California 90009

Dear John,

I again apologize for not being able to attend the June Jlh meeting regarding the proposed Airport Park

and the pending issuance of a Notice of Preparation for the Environmental Impact Report. I understand

that the meeting went very well and was pleased to hear that you and Herman were generally supportive

of the proposed project. I have been debriefed by Marty, Jeff & Karen and I am writing this letter to

confirm my understanding of your discussions regarding the City's compliance with the terms and

conditions of the 1984 Agreement in relationship the proposed Airport Park project.

It is my understanding that Herman would like us to further clarify the issue of the Airport's ability to park

the 550 based and 40 transient aircraft required under the 1984 Agreement and that you felt we could

obtain the FAA's sign off on this issue through the preparation of a combined EIR/EIS for Airport Park.

The EIS would only cover the issue of aircraft parking spaces to show that the development of the

proposed Airport Park project on the designated residual land will not impact the required number of

aircraft parking spaces. Through this process we will produce a map depicting the required aircraft

parking spaces for both versions of the park plan (i.e. locating vehicle parking in portion of mid-level tie

down area, or locating it to the west of the fields next to Donald Douglas Loop South). I further

understand that the wing-span, or the size of the aircraft, is not a critical issue so iong as the layout is

representative of the 1983 fleet mix based at the Airport. I am happy to say that the third FBO issue is

now behind us with the City Council approval of a long term lease with American Flyers.

The City is on the verge of embarking on the EIR for the Airport Park in accordance with the

requirements of California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon your request, we plan to include a

limited EIS to verify the aircraft parking count as part of the environmental analysis. If this is not your

recollection of the comments made during the meeting, please let me know as soon as possible so I can

advise the rest of the staff. If I don't hear from you within the next ten days, we will proceed with the

Notice of Preparation for the EIR/EIS.

JUL I 2200l

tel: 310458-8591 • fax: 310 572-4495
I will forward to you for review and comment all pertinent documents generated during the environmental

analysis and will keep you apprised of significant events as they occur. The Airport Park, and its

recreation facilities and jogging paths, will enhance public acceptance of the Airport in the communities

in the immediate area of the Airport. Airport revenue will not be used to support either the capital or

operating costs of Airport Park. If you have any questions or desire additional information regarding this

matter, please don't hesitate to give me a call at (310) 458-8772.

Sincerely,

cc: Herman Bliss, Airport Division Manager AWP-600 A
HWf-Jl -7 Hl:i1-1

22fU 'lAw ••••••~ ~ !llnU:ulG

·,yAaHl"Ki"rOo<. DC2Illil~

,.C2021 zzs-esre

_.ho~·OlN""''''''''''" i

~ICT ornce:~

e.c:l6 W€aT T_c ST."'"

SUITE lIOO

1.0:5 A~en£s. CA. 9004.8-418a

132111651-'0.0

QCongrt55 of tbt Wniteb ~tatts

j!)ousr of ~eprtSentatilies

.s'bington. iDE: 20S1S-{)S29

HENRY A. WAXMAN

2!frH DISTRICT, CAUFDRNIA

MEMllER

CDMMmEE ON CDMMalCf

DEuOOtATIC S1'EERlI'/(j CCilMMIT1ff

May 26, 2000

Adm.ini.strator Jane F. Garvey

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Ave. SW

Washington, D.C. 20591

Dear Administrator Garvey:

I am. writing on behalf of my constituents who reside near the Santa Monica Airport. For

the past several years, there has been growing concern in the community over pollution and

safety conditions at the airport. I am writing to ask for your assistance in addressing these

problems.

The Santa Monica Airport has a unique layout with approximately 75% of the Airport

surrounded by residences. Some homes are located as close as 300 feet from the east end of the

runway. I have enclosed for your review an aerial photograph which depicts the close proximity

of these homes. I have received numerous complaints about noise, vibrations, fumes, and black

soot from airport traffic, and these problems have been further exacerbated by the dramatic rise

injet traffic over the last few years.

In addition, an emerging and potentially more profound concern is the growing use of

Santa Monica Airport for business jets, which are steadily increasing in number, size, and speed.

The use oftbese airerafts is not only disruptive to the surrounding neighborhoods but

inconsistent with the size and scale of the facility itself. The 5,000 foot runway, built decades

ago, does Dotmeet the safety needs of new aircraft with greater momentum on takeoffs and

landings. Furthermore, there is no room to lengthen the runway to accomrnodate the 1,000 foot

safety area necessary for the larger, fasterjets emerging in the marketplace. Both ends of the

runway are lined with houses and there is only an abrupt slope, a street, and then homes.

I therefore request that the FAA take a more active role in addressing the pollution and

safety problems experienced by neighbors of the Santa Monica Airport, so that we can establish

additional safeguards as soon as possible. To begin this process, I would like to recommend two

feasible solutions for the FAA to evaluate:

OPIIONAL FORM 99 (HID)

..

From

FAX TRANSMITTAL

FllJ( 11

NSN 7540....o1-!l17 -7369 5099-101 GENEFlAL SERVICES ADMINISTRAT
HWt-'l 7 RGI-l NO. 654

(

Administrator Jane F. Garvey

May 26,2000

Page 2

1. The FAA should designate 1,000 feet of the existing runway as a ronway safety area,

similar to the runway safety areas required for new runways, By reducing the length of

the runway to only 4,000 usable feet for flight planning and purposes, this would

effectively set strieter safety guidelines for the types of aircraft that can be used at the

airport.

2. With respect to nighttime noise problems, the FAA should institute an 80 dB maximum

noise limit on all arriving aircraft during the established departure curfew hours from

11 :00 p.m, until 7:00 am ..on weekdays, and from 11~OOp.m. until 8:00 a.m. on

weekends.

The current conditions at Santa Monica Airport and its surrounding neighborhoods will

only continue to deteriorate until pragmatic solutions are put into effect. I hope you will

seriously consider these recommendations for the allport. I appreciate your attention to this

important matter and look forward to your response.

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely,

~C-.WPl--

HENRY A. WAXMAN

Member of Congress

HAWJle

Enclosure